■'^ ' . . » \ 



^0 



0.;-. 



» . rv ^ 






.0* 



iV 






-P^ 



< O 






o > 






^<-, 









,^^ 



'^^ 



.0^ 



V- 

-7*. 



o^ 


_ 




A V/ 






'/- 






^ 






o 


>. 




) 


" \'. 






/'^ 


<■■ 








^'V 






r^' 






**. 






'^% 




0^ 



' .*^ 



"^. 






" v/' 






" 9 . "^ 






• • » V 



.V 



^-0' 



-".. .*•» 



<^ - O H o - O, 






4 o 



"^^ 



V 






^^^ 



• v 



vl-' 









'^^. 



'-v-v 



vV^' -^ 



-<» >» 






.V 



■^ ' f- ' -^ - *o 



^-^^ 






• • ' \ ' 



.^^ 



o > 



^^•n^ 



*>, 






- 



o 



**:. 









-% 



.0^ 









-i-ti' 






•) 



o 






V-" '^<^, 



V^ 



"<^ 



» ( •< 






.f 



0- 



•V^s 






:% 









^m.: ^•n.o^ 



(y c ° " " " ^o ■ ' ■ ^ 









. > V ^ ' * "' C 













a<^ 




yi>^ A^^ ' '^'' ' X*^ -7-. 

V, * o « o ' ^^ 

s • • . -^^ 








' t/ "- 






'V. * o » " A^ 



^^ 'o . » * 



.^^ 






( 



J 






A^/^2 



CONSIDEEATIONS 



ON 



THE IMPROPRIETY AND INEXPEDIENCY 



OF RENEWING 



THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 



*' The JMissouri Question is the most portentous one that ever yet threatened 
our Union. — In the glooiniest moment of the Revolutionarij War, I never had 
any apprehension equal to that I feel from this source." — Jeffehson. 



BY A PENNSYLVANIAN. 



PHILADELPHIA : 

M. CAREY ^ SON. 

1820. 



m 



C.^^ ^ '"S 






# 



CONSIDERATIONS, t^c. 



NO one, who has the welfare of his country at heart, can 
look with indifference upon the approaching session of Con- 
gress. If general report, and the declarations of some of the 
principal newspapers in this quarter of the Union, are to be 
credited, that great and solemn question, which has already- 
shaken the republic to its foundation, is again to be contested. 
The admission of Missouri into the family of states is to be 
again opposed, when her constitution is laid before congress. 
The toleration of slavery by this instrument is to be held forth 
as the reason for prohibiting her entrance ; and the warm and 
universal feeling of repugnance which is known to exist in the 
eastern and middle states against the extension of that evil, 
will, it is supposed, induce the people to second the measure 
with the same unanimity that was displayed on the first agita- 
tion of the question. Nothing, it seems, has been gained by 
the experience of the last session of congress. The lessons 
which that memorable period ought to have inculcated, appear 
to be neglected. What has been solemnly and harmoniously 
decided, is now to be violently unsettled; the torch of discord 
is to be again lighted ; " rancour" is to be " put into the vessels 
of our peace ;" and the fortunes of the republic are once more 
to be s'et adrift. Whatever may be the opinions of individuals 
upon the abstract right of holding human beings in bondage, 
however deeply they may deplore the existence of slavery in 
the United States, and however ardently they may desire its 
extinction, (and no one can have a greater abhorrence of this 
pernicious evil than I have) with all its crimes and miseries, 
I do conceive the calamities that are likely to spring from the 
renewal of the discussion to be so much greater and more 



alarming, that no true friend of our happy and blessed Union 
can hesitate which alternative to prefer. With the proceed- 
ings of the next session of congress I believe the destinies of 
the Union to be connected. Whether this great and admirable 
republic is to i"emain united and prosperous, a monument of 
the beauty and efficacy of free institutions, or to be violently 
resolved into its original elements, and to become the theatre 
and prey of a fierce intestine conflict, will, it appears to me, 
mainly depend on the final settlement of the Missouri Ques- 
tion. If this subject be passed over in harmony, — if Missouri 
be admitted, as she claims to be, on the same footing with 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, 
that is, with the privilege of determining for herself on the 
subject of slavery, there appears nothing in the perspective 
from which the Union has aught to apprehend. But if, on the 
other hand, we are to persist in the determination of shackling 
her with restrictions, consequences the most awful will proba- 
bly ensue. Impressed with the opinion that great moral and 
political mischiefs will follow even from the agitation of the 
question anew, and believing that an adherence to the princi- 
ples of the compromise agreed upon last winter is required by 
reason, humanity, and political expediency, I conceive that 
no effort should be wanting to prevent a renewal of the dis- 
cussion. 

The Missouri Question, as it was presented to the con- 
sideration of the last session of congress, was admitted on 
all sides to be the most delicate and difficult question that 
had arisen since the adoption of the present constitution. 
Perhaps it is not going too far to say, that no question was 
ever discussed before a legislative bod}', more complicated in 
its connexions, or pregnant with more important conse- 
quences. The constitutional right of the legislature, under 
our peculiar form of government, to prohibit the introduction 
of slavery into the new states and territories; the right to pro- 
hibit the introduction or holding of slaves, in the particular 
case of Missouri, in opposition to a supposed covenant in the 
treaty with France by which the territory was acquired ; the 
expediency of exercising such right, supposing it to exist; the 



5 



effect of the proposed restriction upon the condition of the 
slaves at present existing in the elder states, and upon the fu- 
ture increase, by procreation or importation, of that unfortu- 
nate race ; the consequences of the proposed restriction upon 
the character and capacities of the white population of Mis- 
souri and the territories, considered with reference to their 
morals and to their political privileges and duties as members 
of the confederacy ; the consequences of the proposed restric- 
tion upon the political importance of the different sections of 
the Union ; and, above all, its effect upon the health and per- 
manence of that Union, — were considerations which gave the 
subject a most fearful and unusual importance. It was a subject 
upon which some of the first men in the country differed, and 
upon which, if considered connectedly with its threatened po- 
litical consequences, the best and wisest men in any country 
might differ. To the moralist of a foreign nation, the naked 
question, whether the doors of a new and unpolluted land 
should be thrown open to the admission of evil, would appear 
too plain and self-evident to admit of doubt. But when the 
right to prohibit was denied by those upon whom it was to be 
exercised, and the consequences of persisting in the claim 
appeared in their full magnitude, a different question was pre- 
sented. On the one hand, was to be considered the pi-obable 
increase of a servile population, at once the curse and reproach 
of the nation; and on the other, the possible destruction of our 
happy republic, the source of prosperity and comforts to mil- 
lions of a better race, or at least the certain creation of hostile 
feelings between the members of a confederacy, which, in or- 
der that it may be at all beneficial, requires, more than any 
other species of government, the aid of mutual harmony and 
deference. 

It may be doubted whether any political question ever re- 
ceived more ample consideration. Long before the assem- 
bling of congress, public meetings had been held in different 
parts of the United States, at which it was fully canvassed. 
The newspapers, especially those of the eastern and middle 
states, teemed with essays and paragraphs upon the subject ; 
while pamphlets, enforcing the right and expediency of the 



restriction, were circulated with eagerness through the com- 
munity. In congress, the period of time occupied with the 
discussion of the question was commensurate with its impor- 
tance. The most eloquent, the most argumentative, and the 
most diffuse speakers in either house took part in the debate ; 
and every thing that ingenuity or research could bring to bear 
upon the point, was produced and enforced. In the senate, 
where the discussion commenced, more than thirty days were 
occupied, either partially or wholly, with the orations (for so 
many of the speeches may be called) of the advocates and op- 
ponents of the restriction. For thirty-six days, little other 
business was transacted in the house of representatives. The 
whole public business of the nation was at a stand, at a time 
when urgent necessity existed for the despatch of important 
measures. No appropriations were made for the support of 
government, the consequences of which were felt in every de- 
partment. The veterans of the revolution, whom the tardy 
gratitude of the legislature had at last provided for, were now 
dismissed unpaid from the pension-offices. The great ques- 
tions regarding the manufactures, the bankrupt system, and 
the public lands, upon which so much of the welfare of the 
country depended, were suffered to remain unsettled. The 
danger of sectional questions began to appear from the debate. 
Local animosities displayed themselves. Brethren of the same 
nation seemed to look upon each other as aliens; and measures 
which no true friend to his country can contemplate without 
horror, were not obscurely hinted at.* 

After a debate unexampled in our history, the vote was 
taken upon the question, in both branches of the legislature. 
A large majority of the senate decides against imposing the 
restriction. A majority of nine, in the house of representa- 
tives, determines in favour of it. The two houses being thus 
at issue, a committee of conference is appointed on each side. 
A plan of compromise, by which each party yielded some- 
lliing, is reported, and agreed to by a majority of both houses. 
Harmony is restored, — the public confidence re-established; 

• See Note A. 



provision is made for the support of government ; and the 
business of the nation proceeds without further interruption. 
When we reflect upon the public inconvenience that was 
removed, and the danger that was avoided, by this happy 
compromise, it is natural to suppose, that the advocates of re- 
striction, that all true philanthropists, would rest satisfied with 
the really considerable victory they have obtained ; and that, 
weighing in the scales of prudence the certain gain of a limit- 
ed but immense territory, with their possible success in the 
whole at a risk of blood and desolation, they would leave to 
time, and the progress of better feelings, the task of emancipa- 
tion in the um-estricted countries. Reason, which can never 
be divorced from philanthropy, might say to those who op- 
posed the extension of slavery — You have laboured nobly in 
the cause of freedom, and in support of the true policy of the 
republic. Those whom a mistaken sense of interest, or the 
pride of opinion, or local prejudices, or constitutional scruples, 
have led to oppose you, will, at no distant day, acknowledge 
the purity of your motives and the soundness of your views. 
You have done well, and you have gained much : but true 
philanthropy no more requires of her advocates to enforce her 
principles at all hazards, than true religion expects of her vo- 
taries that they should make proselytes with fire and sword. 
The freedom and comfort of the African race are certainly 
objects worth a strenuous effort to obtain; but if they are to 
be bought at the expense of the peace and happiness of this 
country, the price is too great. 

To the advocates of the restriction, as it was attempted to 
be enforced at the last session, no improper views can, I think, 
be fairly attributed. Most of them, I am satisfied, look with 
a single eye to the welfare of their country and the human 
race ; and even their opponents must admit, that in that me- 
morable contest, they displayed, with a few exceptions, a pru- 
dent and temperate tone, worthy of the highest praise. I agree 
with them fully, that the congress possesses a constitutional 
right to impose restrictions both upon states and territories, 
and that it was expedient to impose that restriction upon the 



state of Missouri, provided such measure could be carried 
through without danger of weakening the bonds of union; and 
I believe that by far the greater part of the friends of negro 
emancipation are bounded in their ideas of expediency by the 
same limits. JVIany of them I know well enough to be sure 
that they would disdain to build up the fabric of their own ad- 
vancement with the materials of general philanthropy. That 
worthy and useful sect of Christians, to whom we in Pennsyl- 
vania owe so much of what is good and excellent in our insti- 
tutions, were among the principal advocates of the restriction; 
and those who are acquainted with their principles, know how 
far from them is every thing like political intrigue. One of 
the earliest and warmest opponents of the unrestricted admis- 
sion of Missouri, is a member of that society, a philanthropist 
in the genuine sense of the term, the purity of whose views 
was never darkened by a suspicion of selfishness, even in the 
worst times of party violence, — who, from the days of boy- 
hood, has been first and foremost in all measures of public use- 
fulness to his native country, — and whose benevolence is as 
eager and untiring as it is sincere and disinterested. 

There are, however, perhaps others, and possibly no incon- 
siderable number, who have enrolled themselves under the 
sacred banners of philanthropy, with far different principles 
and views. It is difficult to bring oneself to believe that there 
are many among us who desire to produce a dissolution of the 
Union. The project is so politically monstrous, bears on the 
face of it so much moral deformity, and is so repugnant to the 
natural feelings of Americans, that no other than one despe- 
rately bankrupt in reputation and fortune could possibly enter- 
tain it. But, without being guilty of designs so atrocious, a 
portion of those by whom this unhappy question is again to 
be stirred up may have views of personal aggrandizement, to 
the furtherance of Avhich the cloak of philanthropy may be 
found sufficiently well adapted. Political history is not defi- 
cient in precedents of this nature. In all ages of the world, 
religion and morality have furnished pretexts for designing 
men to promote their own purposes. If it be asked, in what 



9 

manner the Missouri Question can be brought to operate in 
favour of political views, the answer is not difficult. The old 
party distinctions, that for nearly thirty years divided and 
agitated the nation, seem to be nearly obliterated. On princi- 
ples of foreign policy at least, if not on most questions of a 
domestic nature, no great difference of opinion seems to exist. 
The principal offices, however, in the general government, 
and in that of most of the states, are held by republicans ; and 
there is little probability of any of the leading federalists, more 
especially of such as were prominent in the last war, reaching 
any considerable height in public affairs, as long as opposition 
is made on the old party grounds. The great body of the \ 
people have imbibed too deep an aversion to the principles 
avowed by some federal leaders, ever to flock around the / 
federal standard, as such. If, therefore, there be, ainong those 
who for the last twenty years have been engaged in an ineffec- 
tual political contest, any who are still possessed of the craving 
for power and emolument, it is plain, that in order to possess 
even a hope of success, they must raise a new standard. The 
present moment, too, is the most favourable that could be 
seized, for laying the foundation of new party distinctions. 
Men who, under their primitive appellation of federalists or 
repubhcans, have found it impossible to gain the public confi- 
dence, may, by a change of name, and a lucky adoption of 
soine popular principle, flatter themselves with the hope of 
effecting their purpose. The charge of hostility to the consti- 
tution, — the clamour of French influence — the predictions of 
ruin, and subjugation, and military despotism, from the late 
war, — even the popular theme of taxation, — all these have 
availed nothing to dislodge the leading men of the republican 
party from the hold they had gained in the affections of the 
people. But the Missouri Question was one in which the \ ^ 
old party feelings could apparently have no play. It was a 
mixed question of morals and policy, one in a great measure 
new, and calculated to excite the feelings of the people of the 
states in which slavery is not tolerated. It was a fruitful 
theme for eloquence and invective, and naturally gave great 
advantages to those who supported the cause of restriction 

(2) 



10 

over their opponents. The settlement of the question by com- 
promise must therefore have been signally mortifying to those 
(if any th.^re were) who sought to make use of it as the ladder 
of political elevation. The renewed agitation of the question, if 
it be not brought about by this description of politicians, cannot 
fail at least to be serviceable to their views. The flame will be 
fanned by their efforts, and managed no doubt with adroitness, 
in the hope of producing the desired effect. If among those 
opposed to the compromise, there be any who are actuated by 
political schemes, it is plain that it would tend to further those 
schemes greatly, to represent particular individuals, citizens 
of the " slave states," as improper to fill the public offices. 
It would doubtless be urged, that public functionaries, above 
all other men, should be free from sin, or the reproach of sin; 
and that nothing can b',' more sinful or reproachful than to hold 
human beings in bondage. Should there happen to be, in one 
of the " free states," an ambitious politician, who had raised 
his views to the presidency, and found that ordinary efforts 
were insufficient to elevate him to that station, it would clearly 
be his interest to take advantage of this opportunity of forming 
a new partv. His adherents would endeavour to impress upon 
the people the superior fitness of one who was not a holder of 
slaves, for the station of chief magistrate of a free republic, — 
and the moral deformity of the spectacle that is at present ex- 
hibited. The existence of domestic slavery, and the clandes- 
tine continuation of the slave trade, would afford fruitful 
themes for declamation and excitement; and it would proba- 
bly be asked — " Whether the executive authorities are so com- 
posed as to allow the hope, that xvhile they are filled from the 
same quarter^"^ the legislative measures on this subject will ever 
be fully and zealously carried into effect.* In pursuance of the 
same system, the features of domestic slavery in the southern 
states would be distorted and caricatured, the political advan- 
tages of the slave states exaggerated, and every opportunity 
taken to stir up and enlist on their side the honest feelings or 
prejudices of the people.f 

• See Note B. f See Note C. 



a 

As long as men have the liberty of freely expressing their 
opinions, distinct parties will exist ; and if, in the new forma- 
tion of parties that must before long take place, divisions simi- 
lar to those of the republicans and federalists should arise, no 
great mischief would probably happen. But it is an incontro- 
vertible truth, that in a republic like ours, the most dangerous 
of all parties are those which arise from sectional distinctions. 
" In contemplating the causes which disturb our union," said 
that illustrious man, whose name and character alone, if there 
were no other motives to it, ought to be a bond of union, as 
the glory of it belongs to us all, " it occurs as a matter of seri- 
ous concern, that any ground should have been furnished for 
characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, — 
Northern and Southern^ — Atlantic and Western; whence de- 
signing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a 
real difference of local interests and views. One of the expe- 
dients of partij to acquire influence -within particular districts^ 
is to 77iis rep resent the opinioiis and aims of other districts. 
You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies 
and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresema- 
tions : they tend to render alien to each other those who ought 
to be bound together by fraternal affection." Nothing can 
tend more to bring about a dissolution of the Union, than the 
formation of parties not differing on questions of foreign poli- 
cy, nor of such domestic measures as the encouragement of 
manufactures or commerce, in which cases the members of 
each party may exist in every quarter of the Union, but actu- 
ally bounded and designated by fixed geographical marks, all 
of one party being in one half of the Union, and all of the other 
party in the remaining half. When we reflect how far the 
mildest and best of men may be led by party zeal, how much 
the feelings become inflamed by contest and opposition, to 
what lengths of recrimination and retort party zealots will go, 
it is impossible to think without horror of the consequences 
that would flow from sectional parties. In ordinary cases, 
party spirit may be often mitigated by the intercourse in soci- 
ety of those who differ upon political matters : but how little 
of this check would exist, if the people of the east, and those 



13 

of the soutli, were formed into opposing factions ! When, 
during the hite war, it so happened that a majoritv of the peo- 
ple of some of the most eastern states were opposed in political 
sentiments to a majority of the people in the other states, it is 
well known to what extremities the leaders of the ruling fac- 
tion in the former states would have pushed the people, al- 
though there existed within those states a strong and respect- 
able minority. Now the Missouri Question, if persevered in, 
must at all events produce geographical parties. This is one 
of the least of the evils to be apprehended from it ; and it be- 
hooves those who value the peace of the nation, and the inte- 
grity of the Union, to be on their guard against the efforts of 
such as would renew the discussion. For the motives of those 
who honestly believe that the honour or interests of this coun- 
try, that religion or morality, requires that Missouri should 
not be admitted into the Union without restriction, I have the 
highest respect : I believe them, however, to be mistaken; 
and I hope to be able to show them, that they have censured 
the celebrated compromise of that question without sufficient 
consideration. It is to the sober sense of the community, and 
not to their passions or prejudices, that an appeal on so mo- 
mentous an occasion should be made. The great body of the 
people will always decide rightly, when the whole ground is 
laid open to them, however they may be occasionally led into 
error by designing men. Philanthropy and humanity are 
words which sound well on the tongue, and come gratefully 
to the ear ; and those find the easiest access to public affection 
who assume them as their text. Prudence, which the ancient 
poet considered as comprising every virtue, is too often dis- 
regarded, amid the tumult and violence of party spirit. With- 
out consulting her lessons, however, humanity and philanthro- 
py would shower curses, instead of blessings, upon mankind. 



Of the points so strenuously and diffusely argued in the 
original discussion of the JVlissouri Question, the public must 
now be sufficiently weary. Every thing that could be said, 
on the constitutionality and expediency of the restriction, has 
been urged by the numerous writers and speakers on the 



13 

opposite sides. Every man in the community, at all conver- 
sant in political affairs, must have had sufficient light on this 
subject, to enable him to form a decided opinion. The com- 
promise, however, I think, has never received the examination 
it was entitled to. It has been attacked with vehemence, by 
the zealots of both parties : those who gave it their votes, after 
supporting the restriction, have been held up to the ridicule 
and indignation of their fellow citizens; and so successful have 
been the violent opposers of Missouri, in their efforts to decry 
and misrepresent it, that in this quarter of the Union, scarcely 
a voice has been raised in its favour. From the almost uni- 
versal sentence of reprobation that has been passed upon this 
settlement, one not acquainted with the history and constitu- 
tion of this country, or with the peculiar circumstances of this 
question, would be led to suppose that the system of compro- 
mise was new to our annals and unheard of in our legislation, 
and that the particular measure in question involved some 
great sacrifice of a moral or political right, made without any 
existing necessity, a gratuitous assumption of evil, and, from 
its peculiar deformity, in nowise binding upon the conscience 
or good faith of the people.* How far such conclusion is well 
founded, will be seen from the view I propose to take of the 
subject. It is, I think, demonstrable,^ — ■ 

I. That the union of these states derived its existence from 
a spirit of compromise; that our present admirable constitution 
was built upon the basis of compromise ; that its spirit has 
pervaded our whole legislation ; and that nothing but an ad- 
herence to that original and vital spirit can preserve us from 
discord and disunion. 

II. That there was nothing in the compromise of the Mis- 
souri Question, at the last session of congress, to render it 
obnoxious to public censure ; that, on the contrary, it will, if 
adhered to, produce great public benefit ; but that, whatever 
may be our opinions of its propriety, we are bound by good 
faith and policy to fulfil it. 

* See Note D. 



14 

I. If any doubt could be entertained that our union and con- 
stitution derived and maintained their existence from com- 
promise and concession, a brief review of our political history 
will be sufficient to satisfy the reader. He will there see what 
mutual forbearance with the prejudices and errors of brethren 
has done to remove difficulties, to soften animosities, to awa- 
ken kindly sentiments, and finally, to create that beautiful sys- 
tem of polity whose blessings we are now experiencing. 

No one can form a just estimate of our political condition, 
who is not prepared to make the fullest allowance for the ra- 
dical difference that exists between a confederacy of states, 
and a homogeneous mass, composing an entire and indivisible 
nation, such as exists in many parts of Europe. From the 
earliest settlement of this country, geographical and political 
lines have separated the people into distinct communities, with 
distinct laws and governments. Although generally peopled 
from the same fountain, no more political union existed be- 
tween them, previous to the revolution, than there is at this 
moment between Jamaica and Hindostan, both of which are, 
however, provinces of the same empire. When it became 
necessary to take up arms against England, a coalition offerees 
and councils was agreed upon, and as tlie royal authority be- 
came virtually extinct, this coalition was extended and con- 
firmed by a confederation, the great features of which were 
the perfect equality, and, with very few exceptions, the sove- 
reignty, of the allied states. Limited, however, as were the 
powers of the general government, and the deductions from 
the sovereignty of the individual states, the task of bringing 
them to revolve haimoniously in one system, appears to have 
been no easy one. So conflicting were the interests, so oppo- 
site the political views, so strong the prejudices, of different 
sections, even under the perilous circumstances of the times. 
The example was then first set of compromise, of a mutual 
concession of a portion of interfering claims and opinions, 
which is necessary for the public good. We find the expedi- 
ency of acting upon this principle, strongly urged by congress, 
in their circular letter to the states, (dated at York Town, 



15 

November 17, 1777',) which accompanied the act of confede- 
ration. " To form a permanent union," said this venerable 
body, " accommodated to the opinions and wishes of the de- 
legates of so many states, differing in habits, produce, com- 
merce, and internal police, was found to be a work which no- 
thing but time and reflection, conspiring with a disposition to 
conciliate, could mature and accomplish. Hardly is it to be 
expected, that any plan, in the variety of provisions essential 
to our union, should exactly correspond with the maxims and 
political views of every particular state. Let it be remarked, 
that after the most careful inquiry, and the fullest information, 
this is proposed as the best that could be adapted to the cir- 
cumstances of all ; and as that alone which affords any tolera- 
ble prospect of general ratification. Permit us then earnestly to 
recommend these articles to the immediate and dispassionate 
attention of the legislatures of the respective states. Let them 
be candidly reviewed, under a sense of the difficulty of com- 
bining in one general system, the various sentiments and in- 
terests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and in- 
dependent communities, under a conviction of the absolute 
necessity of uniting all our councils, and all our strength, to 
maintain and defend our common liberties : let them be exa- 
mined with a liberality becoming brethren and fellow-citizens, 
surrounded by the same imminent dangers, contending for the 
same illustrious prize, and deeply interested in being for ever 
bound and connected together by ties the most intimate and 
indissoluble; and finally, let them be adjusted with the tem- 
per and magnanimity of wise and patriotic legislators, who, 
while they are concerned for the prosperity of their own im- 
mediate circle, are capable of rising superior to local attach- 
ments, when they may be incompatible with the safety, happi- 
ness, and glory, of the general confederacy." 

When the articles of confederation were laid before the re- 
spective states for their consideration, the numerous objec- 
tions that were made to different provisions, notwithstanding 
the eloquent representation of congress, displayed in a strong 
light the opposition of interests that prevailed. One of the 
articles which seems to have excited the strongest animadver- 



16 

bion, was that which 'provided that the quota of troops to be 
furnished by each state, should be in proportion to the number 
o( white inhabitants in such state. This oi^jcction was parti- 
cularly taken by the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 
by the latter, in a memorial addressed to congress, in which 
the hardship of the rule upon the " free states" was particu- 
larly pointed out. So early did this unfortunate question arise 
in our history. In consequence of this and other objections 
to the instrument, its ratification was delayed for a considera- 
ble period. It is probable, that then, as now, political agita- 
tors were at work, to prove the sinfulness of compromise, and 
the impolicy of sacrificing political rights. At length, how- 
ever, the spirit of harmony and concession prevailed ; and on 
the 9th of July, 1778, it was ratified by all the states, except 
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. To these, the general 
government addressed a second letter, in which the necessity of 
mutual forbearance was again insisted upon. " Congress," it 
was said, " intent upon the present and future security of these 
United States, has never ceased to consider a confederacy as 
the great principle of union which can alone establish the liber- 
ty of America, and exclude for ever the hopes of its enemies. 
Influenced by considerations so powerful, and duly weighing 
the difficulties which oppose the expectation of any plan being 
formed which can exactly meet the wishes and obtain the ap- 
probation of so many states, diff"ering essentially in various 
points, congress have, after mature deliberation, agreed to 
adopt without amendments, the confederation transmitted to 
the several states for their approbation." This appeal to their 
American feelings prevailed, and the non-concurring states 
finally agreed to ratify the articles of confederation as they 
stood, preferring to sacrifice minor points to risking the great 
oliject of union. It would not be a difficult matter to detail 
numerous instances, to prove that the spirit of compromise 
and forbearance prevailed to a great extent in the period be- 
tween the declaration of independence and the formation of the 
new constitution. Strong evidence of this fact appears in the 
cession, made by several of the states, of their, vacant lands, 
for the common benefit. The example was set by New York, 



17 

and the reasons given, in the preamble to the act of cession, 
display the feelings that were then predominant among the 
community in that section of the republic. " Whereas nothing 
under Divine Providence can more effectually contribute to 
the tranquillity and safety of the United States of America, 
than a federal alliance, on such liberal principles as will give 
satisfaction to its respective members ; and whereas the arti- 
cles of confederation and perpetual union, recommended by 
the honourable congress of the United States of America, have 
not proved acceptable to all the states, it having been conceiv- 
ed that a portion of the waste and uncultivated territory with- 
in the limits or claims of certain states, ought to be appropri- 
ated as a common fund for the expenses of the war : and the 
people of the state of New York, being on all occasions dis- 
posed to manifest their regard for their sister states, and their 
earnest desire to promote the general interest and security ; 
and more especially to accelerate the federal alliance, by re- 
moving, as far as it depends on them, the before mentioned 
impediment to its final accomplishment," &c. 

Virginia followed, by a liberal relinquishment of all its land 
north-west of the river Ohio. Massachusetts and Connecti- 
cut made similar grants of all their claims to western land, 
and South Carolina threw into the general fund all its south- 
western territory. The preamble of the act by which the lat- 
ter state conveyed its rights to the United States, breathes a 
similar spirit with that of New York. " Whereas the congress 
of the United States did, on the 6th day of September, in the 
year 1780, recommend to the several states in the Union, hav- 
ing claims to western territory, to make a liberal cession to 
the United States of a portion of their respective claims, for 
the common benefit of the Union : and whereas this state is 
willing to adopt every measure which can tend to promote the 
honour and dignity of the United States, and strengthen their 
federal union," &c. When we consider the immense extent 
of the territory ceded by these states to the confederacy, and 
the various interests that must have operated to induce them 
to retain the property of the soil, and to forbid the narrowing 
of their respective limits, it must be acknowledged that the 

(3) 



18 

sacrifice thus made at the shrine of concord, was of no ordi- 
narv magnitude-. 

When, in consequence of tlie flagrant defects in the old sys- 
tem of confederation, alterations became necessary in some of 
its principal features, new difficulties arose, which could only 
be surmounted by an increased spirit of accommodation. So 
clashing were the interests and views represented in the con- 
vention, that it has been said nothing but the authority of the 
great men who composed it could have availed to obtain the 
ratification of the constitution. Every ai'ticle of that consti- 
tution bears the stamp of compromise, and that, the very name 
of which political manoeuvre or a mistaken zeal is now striving 
to render obnoxious, was considered by the illustrious patriots 
of those times as the vital breath of the Union. Upon that 
they rested their hopes of a free and efficient government, 
which should " establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 
provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, 
and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their 
posterity." The concessions too that were made on that oc- 
casion, let it be remembered, were not merely concessions of 
political feelings and local claims, but concessions of what are 
considered moral principles^ for the sake of union and good 
government. When they call to recollection when and by 
what kind of men those concessions were made, let the un- 
bending advocates of restriction, the opponents of all compro- 
mise and concession, take a lesson of humility and prudence. 

In their letter to congress, which accompanied the consti- 
tution, the convention conveyed their views of the necessity 
of a mutual yielding and abandonment of prejudices and local 
interests, in language which is equally applicable to the pre- 
sent period. '' It is ob\ iously impracticable, in the federal 
government of these states," said they, " to secure all rights 
of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the 
interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society, 
must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The 
magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation 
and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all 
times difficult to draw with precision the line between those 



19 

rights which must be surrendered and those which may be 
reserved ; and on the present occasion, this difficulty was in- 
creased by a difference among the several states as to their 
situation, extent, habits, and particular interests." 

" In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in 
view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every 
true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is in- 
volved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national 
existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply 
impressed on our minds, led each state in the convention to 
be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have 
been otherwise expected ; and thus the constitution which we 
now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mu- 
tual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our po- 
litical situation rendered indispensable." 

" That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every 
state, is not perhaps to be expected ; but each will doubtless 
consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the con- 
sequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injuri- 
bus to others. That it is liable to as few exceptions as could 
reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe ; that it 
may promote the lasting welfare of that country, so dear to us 
all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent 
wish." 

The magnitude of the sacrifices made on this occasion, the 
nature of the compromises by which union and the constitution 
were preserved, can only be estimated properly by a review 
of the different parties that agitated the convention. These 
may be classed under the following heads : — 

1. The political interests of the greater and lesser states 
were opposed to each other. 

2. The interests of the commercial and agricultural states 
were in opposition. 

3. An opposition of feeling and interest existed between 
those states which possessed slaves, and those which had abo- 
lished slavery. 

1. The debates which took place in the convention have 
never been given to the world. They sate with closed doors; 



20 

and it is only within a few months that their Journal has been 
piiljlished. In the different state conventions, however, parts 
of their proceedings, and sketches of their debates, were made 
known by some of the members. The fullest account of the 
views of the framers of the constitution, and of the difficulties 
they met with in the convention, is to be found in " The Fede- 
ralist," "a work," say the PLdinburgh Reviewers, "which 
exhibits an extent and precision of information, a profundity 
of research, and an acuteness of understanding, which would 
have done honour to the most illustrious statesmen of ancient 
or modern times." In the 37ih Number of those Essays,=»<= 
we find the following remarks on this subject, which deserve 
to be attentively weighed at the present period : — " To the 
difficulties already mentioned, may be added the interfering 
pretensions of the larger and smaller states. We cannot err 
in supposing that the former would contend for a participation 
in the government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth 
and importance ; and that the latter would not be less tenacious 
of the equality at present enjoyed by them. JVe may xvell 
suppose that nc'itlier side would enttrehj yield to the other, and 
consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by com- 
promise. It is extremely probable, also, that after the ratio of 
representation had been adjusted, this very compromise must 
have produced a fresh struggle between the same parties, to 
give such a turn to the organization of the government, and to 
the distribution of its powers, as would increase the importance 
of the branches, in forming which they had respectively ob- 
tained the greatest share of influence. There are features in 
the constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and 
as far as either of them is well founded, it shozus that the con- 
vention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical pro- 
priety to the force of extraneous considerations.'''' 

The strength of the arguments that we may presume to 
have been urged by either side of the question, will show how 
much difficulty must have existed in elTecting a compromise. 
The convention — (it was doubtless urged by the representa- 

• Written by Mr. Madison. 



*> 



1 



lives of the smaller states) — was an assemblage of envoys from 
sovereign and independent communities : that all sovereigns 
being equal in the eye of the law of nations, as all men were 
equal in their political rights in the eye of the municipal law, 
it followed, that in the proposed plan of union, each state ought 
to be allowed an equal representation in the national council. 
The obvious danger to the smaller states, of being swallowed 
up or partitioned by the greater sovereignties in their vicinity, 
in case a contrary system was adopted, must have been insist- 
ed upon by their delegates, with a warmth which an attach- 
ment to the rights and dignity of their native state, however 
circumscribed in territorj- that state might be, would naturally 
create. On the other hand, it was probably said, with no less 
zeal, that the new constitution was proposed as one emanating 
from, and binding, the people as one nation, however, for cer- 
tain purposes, they were politically divided into states. It was 
the first principle of a republican government, that a majority 
of the people should govern. If the system contended for by 
the smaller states should prevail, one-third of the people might 
make laws binding the remainder. The payment of two-thirds 
of the taxes, and the furnishing of two-thirds of the militia, 
would, contrary to every principle of justice, entitle the larger 
states to no more than an equal representation. Such a system 
would be far more likely to lead to violence and usurpation, 
than one which gave each state political power in proportion 
to its capacity of supporting the government. 

Here were certainly arguments sufficiently plausible to in- 
duce both sides to adhere to their opinions. Had not the love 
of union been a paramount feeling, the contest would have been 
continued until one party was gratified at the expense of the 
other, in which case a hollow and heartless alliance might have 
been formed; or, neither party giving way, the whole scheme 
of the constitution must have been abandoned. 

Those illustrious patriots knew better the value of harmony 
and accommodation, in a confederacy like this, than some of 
the politicians of more modern days. The political equality of 
each member of the Union was admitted by the larger states j 
and a representation upon this prinqiple was given in the 



23 

senate, which, by a particular provision of the constitution, 
can never be reduced. The principle that representation 
should be conformable to population, was also admitted by the 
smaller states ; and upon this basis the house of representatives 
was established. Thus, by the expedient of compromise^ both 
parties gave way, but both were gratified. If Delaware and 
Connecticut were outvoted in the house of representatives, 
they knew that in the senate their " voice would be as poten- 
tial" as that of the richest and proudest state in the Union ; 
and Pennsylvania and Virginia, if they had reason to be dis- 
satisfied with their comparative insignificancy in the senate, 
felt themselves perhaps sufficiently compensated by receiving 
their due share of respect in the most numerous branch of the 
legislature. " The equality of representation in the senate^'' 
says general Hamilton,* '■'■ ivas evidently the result of compro- 
mise betxveen the opposite pretensions of the large and the sm,all 
states.'''' " It is superfluous to try by the standard of theory 
a part of the constitution which is allowed on all hands to be 
the result, not of theory, but ' of a spirit of amity, and that 
mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our 
political situation rendered indispensable.' A common go- 
vernment, founded on principles more consonant to the wishes 
of the larger states, is not likely to be obtained from the small- 
er states. The only option then for the former, lies between 
the proposed government and a government still more objec- 
tionable. Under this alternative^ the advice of prudence must 
be^ to embrace the lesser evil; and^ instead of indulging a fruit- 
less anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue^ to 
co7itemplate rather the advantageous consequences zvhich ?nay 
(jucdify the sacrifice.'''' Nothing can be more just, nothing can 
Ije more conformable to the princi])les of our government, than 
the doctrines contained in this passage of the Essay. 

2. Another series of difficulties that could onlv be removed, 
and of pretensions that could only be reconciled, by compro- 
mise, arose from the difference of the soil, climate, and local 
position, of the various members of the confedcracv. 'I'he 

• Tlie Federalist, No.LXlI. 



eastern and middle states derived a great deal of their pros- 
perity directly from commerce. The people of the southern 
states were, as still they are, more purely agricultural : their 
produce was exported to foreign countries by the vessels of 
the eastern states, by which means also they received all or 
the greater part of their returns, in foreign produce or manu- 
factures. The commercial states, at that time, formed a ma- 
jority of the confederacy; and great fears were entertained by 
the southern members, that if the power of regulating com- 
merce were given to a majority of the legislature, navigation 
laws prejudicial to their interests would be enacted. Under 
this impression, they contended vehemently for the introduc- 
tion of an article into the constitution, forbidding the passage 
of laws relating to commerce or navigation, unless by the vote 
of two-thirds of the members present in both houses. The 
members from the eastern and middle states, on the other 
hand, struggled with equal pertinacity against a proposition 
which should thus subject the majority to the will of a mino- 
rity. The discussion, it is well known, eventuated in the suc- 
cess of the commercial states ; but it is not equally known that 
this result also was the effect of compromise. The fact appears 
from the debates of the Virginia convention. Great opposi- 
tion had been manifested in that body to the proposed consti- 
tution, on the ground taken by the southern members in the 
federal convention. In explanation of the reasons which led 
to the adoption of the constitution as it stood, governor Ran- 
dolph said — " I have never hesitated to acknowledge, that I 
wish the regulation of commerce had been put in the hands of 
a greater body than it is in the sense of the constitution. But 
I appeal to viy colleagues in the federal convention^ whether 
this xvas not a sine qua non of the Union^^ Mr. Mason, 
another member of the federal convention, said — " I will 
give you, to the best of ntiy recollection, the history of that 
affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four 
months, during which time, the subject of commerce and 
navigation was often under consideration; and I assert, that 

* Page 430. 



24 

eight states out of twelve, for more than three months, voted 
for requiring two-thirds of the members present in each house 
to pass commercial and navigation laws. True it is, that 
afterwards it was carried by a majority as it stands. If I am 
right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds of 
tlie states in this business, till a compromise took place between 
the northern and southern states, the northern states agreeing 
to the temporary importation of slaves, and the southern states 
(Georgia and South Carolina) conceding in return that navi- 
gation and commercial laws should be on the footing on which 
they now stand."* Mr. JMadison said, in the course of the 
same debate — " I well recollect the reasoning of some gentle- 
men on the subject. It was said, and I believe with truth, 
that every part of America does not stand in equal need of 
security. It was observed, that the northern states were most 
competent to their own safety. Was it reasonable, asked they, 
that they should bind themselves in defence of the southern 
states, and yet be left at the mercy of the minority for com- 
mercial advantages ? Should it be in the power of the minority 
to deprive them of this and other advantages, when they were 
bound to defend the whole Union, it might be a disadvantage 
for them to confederate."! 

3. It is obvious that the eastern and middle states on one 
side, and the southern states on the other, must have been 
directly at issue on all subjects connected with the unfortunate 
existence of slavery in the latter. Two questions, especially, 
of great magnitude and interest, arose : — First, whether any, 
and what, representation in the national government, should 
be allowed to that part of the poi)ulation which M'as held in 
bondage ? — and second, what steps could be taken by the gene- 
ral government, to restrain their increase, and promote their 
emancipation ? The subjects I have before noticed must ne- 
cessarily have produced considerable excitement, and required 
for their accommodation the exercise of a strong spirit of 

• Page 431. ftfr. Mason appears, from the Journal of the convention, to 
liavc been mislakcu in this point. Seven stales, out of the twelve, voted 
aj^^iinst the article requiring more than a majority to pass commercial laws. 

t I'age 444. 



25 

amity. But the subject of slavery was one with which such 
important interests were connected, in the discussion of which 
so much passion and prejudice must have been evolved, upon 
which politics and morals and religion must have exercised 
so much influence, one in short so difficult and so dangerous, 
that to pi-oduce any thing like agreement between the opposing 
parties, immense sacrifices of feelings and opinions must have 
been made. We may imagine, from the sensibility still display- 
ed in some of the " free states" on the point, what must have 
been the impediments in the way of adjusting the question of re- 
presentation, when it came, as it did then for the first time, be- 
fore the convention. Under the old system of confederation, 
this question could not arise, because each state was entitled to 
an equal vote. The number of white inhabitants, however, was 
made the standard in apportioning the quotas of militia. The 
same rule, it would naturally be thought by the delegates from 
the "free states," ought to be applied to representation. " Slaves 
(they probably said) were not considered in the southern states 
in the light of citizens; they paid no taxes, they were excluded 
from the militia, they contributed in no way to the support of 
government: they were, on the contrary, a dead weight on the 
political energies of the southern whites, and tended to pro- 
duce debasing effects upon their morals. To give, therefore, 
a representation in the national councils to the masters of this 
proscribed and disfranchised race, as if they were free and 
useful citizens, Avould be flagrantly unjust, and diametrically 
opposite to the principles of republicanism. If they are looked 
upon as property, we of the north have an equal claim to ask 
a representation of our houses and cattle. As these unhappy 
beings will not be allowed the privilege of voting, it follows, 
that if they are represented, a white man in Virginia or 
Carolina will have nearly twice as much political power as a 
freeman in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. What reason can 
be given for such discrimination ? Is there any thing in south- 
ern blood, or southern intellect, that elevates the free inhabitant 
of the ' slave states' so far above the New Englander V Such 
were probably the reflections of many members of the conven- 
tion, on the discussion of this question. On the other hand, 



26 

many strong reasons would suggest themselves to the mem- 
birs from the southern states, in support of a claim for a full 
representation of their whole population. " The rule of the old 
confederation, l)y which the quota of taxes to be paid by each 
stati- was to be proportioned by the value of land, had been 
found defective. In 1783, a change was proposed to the states 
by congress, in whicli the quotas of tTie states were to be sup- 
plied in proportion to the whole number of whites and three- 
fifths of the slaves. The ratio then agreed upon was stated by 
congress, in its address to the states, to be •" the result of mu- 
tual concession.' Now, if slaves were considered as part of 
the population for one purpose, they ought to be so considered 
for other purposes. Taxation and representation ought to be 
concurrent. True it is, that the elective franchise is not exer- 
cised in the southern states by slaves, and it would be a mon- 
strous anomaly to permit it to them : but this is a matter of 
municipal jurisdiction, with which the general government has 
nothing to do. Every state exercises the right of determining 
in wliat part of its population the privilege of voting shall be 
vested. In every state, some portion of the people is exclud- 
ed. In one state, the elective franchise is confined to free- 
holders ; in another, to such as pay a certain amount of taxes. 
Paupers and the military are excluded in some, women in 
nearly all, children in all. The southern states have an equal 
right to exclude slaves. Negroes held in bondage contribute 
by their labour to increase the wealth of the country, like other 
laljourers. It is true, they do not serve in the militia ; but 
the same observation may be made of portions of the popula- 
tion of other states in which slaves are not held." 

So opposite were the views of the two sections of the 
Union, that nothing hut compromise could have united them 
in favour of the constitution. Extremes were given up on 
each side, and a medium found with which both might be 
toleralily satisfied. Instead of allowing a representation for 
the whole number of slaves, the convention determined that 
three-fifths only should be represented ; and instead oN,axing 
the whole niunl)er, the same standard was adopted. Thus, 
in the words of general Hamilton, " a comlyromhing expedient 



37 

was adopted^ which regards them as inhabitants, but as de- 
based by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, 
which regards the slave as divested of two-fifths of the 

The slightest reflection is sufficient to convince us of the 
extreme delicacy and importance of the next question, in re- 
lation to this subject, which the convention was called upon to 
determine. The slave trade had long been considered by- 
most of those who were not interested in its continuance, as a 
flagrant reproach upon the professors of Christianity. From 
the time of cardinal Ximenies to that of Benezet, the best and 
wisest men had raised their voices against it. About the 
period, however, of the meeting of the convention, there seems 
to have been a more general turning of men's minds to the 
subject than at any previous epoch. In the United States 
especially, the growing abhox-rence of the traffic was becoming 
louder and more universal. Pennsylvania abolished the slave 
trade, and put a period to slavery itself within her jurisdiction, 
in 1780. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, not 
long afterwards prohibited the traffic to their citizens. Vir- 
ginia had previously done the same. Societies, whose declar- 
ed object was the abolition of the slave trade, were instituted, 
and a correspondence and concert were maintained with Eng- 
land and France. The press teemed with essays in which the 
sinfulness and impolicy of the traffic were displayed with great 
strength of reason and warmth of invective. In a word, Eu- 
rope and America seemed to be stirred up in opposition to its 
continuance. 

It was at a moment so unfavourable to the temperate dis- 
cussion of the question, when the minds of the people in 
one portion of the Union had been powerfully and enthusiasti- 
cally acted upon, and a deep sense of interest connected with 
a certain pride which revolted at interference in \vhat M^as 
considered a domestic and municipal concern, was felt no less 
strongly in the remainder, that the convention entered upon 
the subject of slavery. With the power to regulate com- 

» The Federalist, No. LIV. 



38 

inercc, proposed by the constitution to be given to the gene- 
ral government, congress would have had the right to forbid 
the importation of slaves into any part of the United States. 
Under the old confederation, this power belonged to the state 
governments only, and had been exercised by several of them. 
It was now proposed by some of the southern members, that 
it should be excepted, for a limited period of time, from the 
general powers of congress. From all that has transpired of 
the proceedings of the convention, it appears that this proposal 
was most warmly pressed by two states alone — South Carolina 
and Georgia. The remaining states were desirous that con- 
gress should possess the right of immediately abolishing the 
traffic, but the two states most directly interested in its con- 
tinuance, held out until they carried their point by compro- 
mise. 

To those who now inveigh against every thing like compro- 
mise or concession, and who are for carrying through their 
projects at every hazard and expense, a review of the pro- 
ceedings of the convention on this occasion ought to be in no 
small degree edifying. Compared with the magnitude and 
solemnity of this subject, how trifling in importance does the 
question of the admission of slaves into Missouri appear ! 
What were the consequences of tolerating slavery in that 
state, compared with the danger and sin of the slave trade ? 
What comparison is there between the opposition that was 
made to the restriction on Missouri, and that which arose in 
the convention on the proposal to give congress the power of 
suppressing the traffic in slaves ? In the convention, it is be- 
lieved that Virginia, Mar) land, Delaware, and North Caro- 
lina, of the slave holding states, and ;J1 the eastern and mid- 
dle states, were in favour of the abolition, while two states 
only, and those of no great political importance, opposed it. 
la the case of Missouri, it is well known that the Union was 
nearly equally divided. The members from the slave hold- 
ing states were unanimous in their opposition to the restric- 
tion, and they v/ere supported by several members from the 
eastern and middle states. The state authorities too, in the 
southern and south-western section of the Union, manifested 



29 

a determined resolution to oppose the measure. How much 
strongfc-r then must the arguments of those members of the con- 
vention who were in favour of the abohtion, have appeared ? 
With how much more weight and probability of success must 
they have contended against the limitation of the powers oi 
congress, for even a very short period of time, than those who 
advocated the restriction on Missouri ? In drawing a picture 
of the consequences of abolishing or continuing the slave 
trade, how much darker must have been the shades in the 
one case, how much brighter the tints in the other, than a 
corresponding view of the results of the Missouri question : 
On the one hand, the philanthropists of the convention could 
point to the certain continuance of crime and misery, the per- 
petuation of a barbarous piracy in Africa, and the almost in- 
definite multiplication of a wretched and dangerous race with- 
in our own confines. From an adherence to the determina- 
tion of abolishing the traffic on the other hand, what worse 
consequence would ensue than the refusal of two states, not of 
the first magnitude, to enter the Union under the new consti- 
tution, and possibly the failure of that constitution? What! 
(it was probably asked, as recently similar exclamations have 
been uttered) shall political advantages be put in competition 
with moral duty ? Shall an addition to the geographical extent 
of a country be ranked in importance by a Christian people 
with the removal of a load of sin and reproach from their cha- 
racter ? Shall the possible benefits that may accrue from the 
constitution have more weight with us than the abolition, as 
far as we have the power to effect it, of a vile and inhuman 
traffic, which has converted a vast continent into a theatre of 
plunder and misery ? Nothing short of an immediate and total 
cessation of this unrighteous system can satisfy the divine 
justice, or make any atonement for the wrongs of Africa. To 
give congress power to abolish the trade in twenty or even ten 
years, is to make a mockery of humanity. How many thou- 
sands may not be dragged across the Atlantic in that period of 
time ? Not a moment of those twenty long years will be lost 
by the dealers in human flesh ; and when at length this v/hole 
continent shall have become saturated with slaves, and then 



30 

only, it is agreed a stop may be put to their further intro- 
duction. 

Such, or similar to this, was probably the language with 
which the proposal to limit the power of abolishing the slave 
trade, was met in the convention. Among the members of 
tliat body, were men, second to none of the human race in a 
rational zeal for freedom ; profoundly attached to the great 
principles of Christianity and morals ; and bounded in their 
philanthropy by no narrow prejudices of colour or country. 
The convention was composed, indeed, principally of the men 
who had devoted themselves for their country, during the re- 
volution, both in congress, and in the field, and whom we 
have a right therefore to consider as deeply interested in her 
fate. At their head was that unequalled patriot to whom the 
republic owes so much both of her prosperity and her glory, 
who saw clearly, and steadily supported her true interests, 
and to whose authority, if authority on matters of opinion 
ought ever to govern, the people of the United States are pe- 
culiarly bound to submit. Second only to him, in weight of 
character, was Franklin, a warm and zealous philanthropist, 
an uniform enemy of slavery and oppression in every shape, 
of which his situation as president of the Pennsylvania So- 
ciety for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, is a convincing 
proof, and whose entire life had been passed in vindication 
and support of the rights of the human race. Among the 
members were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Jared 
Ingersoll, John Dickinson, who, as statesmen, may be com- 
])ared with any of those who now occupy conspicuous situa- 
tions on the political theatre. These men were philanthro- 
pists, but they were at the same time patriots and philoso- 
phers. If they saw and regretted the miseries of African sla- 
very, they did not shut their eyes to the causes which brought 
that curse upon the country, nor to the consequences which 
would ensue from attempting to force its abolition. The 
union of the states, luider a free and energetic government, 
was the great object of their desires and efforts. They could 
not have been insensible to the force of the arguments with 
which the immediate abolition of the slave trade was pressed, 



31 

but stronger motives urged them to postpone the exercise of 
their right to abolish it. They felt as became men for the suffer- 
ings of the negroes ; but they looked to the inestimable blessings 
which the adoption of the constitution would confer on the 
whole body of whites. In the freedom, security, and happiness 
of the latter, they found something to counterbalance the mise- 
ries which a temporary permission of the slave trade would 
produce; and, however cruel and mistaken they considered 
the policy of the two states by which the abolition was op- 
posed, the patriots of those days refused to put the great 
cause in jeopardy by an obstinate adherence to preconceived 
opinions. They could not but perceive that by acceding to 
the constitution, with this limitation, something would be 
gained even for the cause of the negroes. If the states were 
disunited, or left to regulate their own commerce, the trade 
might be continued until every district of the immense west- 
ern countries was blackened (to use Dr. Franklin's expres- 
sions) by negro slavery ; whereas, by acceding to the consti- 
tution, a fixed and certain limitation was put to it. 

Mr. Madison, the late president of the United States, who is 
known to have been an advocate of the abolition of slavery, in- 
the federal convention, thus expressed himself when the ques- 
tion was discussed in the Virginia convention : — " I should 
conceive this clause to be impolitic if it were one of those things 
which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. 
The southern states would not have entered into the Union of 
America without the temporary permission of this trade. And 
if they xvere excluded from the Union the consequences might 
be dreadful to them and vs. We are not in a worse situation 
than before. The traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we 
may continue the prohibition. The Union in general is not 
in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation it 
might be continued for ever. But by this clause an end may 
be put to it after twenty years. The gentlemen from South 
Carolina and Georgia, argued in this manner : — ' We have 
now liberty to import this species of property, and much of 
the property now possessed has been purchased or otherwise 
acquired in contemplation of improving it by the assistance 



32 

of imported slaves. What would be the consequences of hin- 
dering it from us ? The slaves in Virginia would rise in 
value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.' I 
need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil w, a dis- 
viemhcrment of the Union would be ruorse.''^ 

Nothing can furnish stronger evidence of the value entertain- 
ed by the convention of union and the constitution, than their 
proceedings on this question. Not merely did the permission to 
continue the traffic in slaves, shock the moral sense of the hu- 
mane part of the community, but it affected likewise the politi- 
cal interests of the eastern and middle states, by increasing a 
species of population which gave political importance to the 
southern states, without adding to their political energies. 
Great as these obstacles were to an harmonious agi'eement, 
they were not allowed to stand in the way of union. 

Thus, as we have seen, in three signal instances, in which 
the political rights, the pecuniary interests, and the moral 
feelings of the community were involved, that redeeming 
spirit of compromise, which a sense of mutual regard and 
mutual dependence created, preserved the Union inviolate. 

Our constitution having owed its existence to a spirit of 
compromise, the continuance of that spirit has been visible in 
all public measures adopted since that period. It is only ne- 
cessary to take a glance at our political history, to be satisfied 
that through each successive administration, the common- 
wealth has been buoyed up and propelled by this principle. 
Our statute book will show that the interests and feelings, and 
even the prejudices of particular sections, have been consult- 
ed, and that sacrifices of no small importance have been made 
at the shrine of union. In the appointments to public offices 
that have been made since the formation of the constitution, 
this fact is clearly manifested. From the time of Washing- 
ton to that of Monroe, the most scrupulous regard has been 
paid to the principle of selecting individuals, as nearly as pos- 
sible, in a due proportion from each state. In many cases, 
tills attention to state feelings and wishes, mav have been 
carried too far ; but the error, if any, has arisen from just 
views of the policy of the government. It is evident, too, 



33 

that the same causes which existed, at the period of the for- 
mation of the constitution, for an opposition of interests, still 
existing, there is a similar necessity for mutual forbearance 
and concession in navigating the vessel of state. There are 
still large and small states ; the various sections of the Union 
still difler in their pursuits and interests ; and an opposition of 
feeling and interest is still perceived between the " free" and 
" slave" states, although the bonds of union have been drawn 
closer by the present constitution. Without entering into de- 
tails which would swell the number of these pages far beyond 
the desired limit, it may be sufficient to advert to the laws 
which have been enacted for the protection and support of 
commerce, since the present government went into operation, 
as a proof of the desire of mutual accommodation that has 
prevailed. By far the greater part of the tonnage and sea- 
men of the United States, belong to the eastern and middle 
sections of the Union. The southern states, on the other 
hand, are agricultural, and although they derive advantages 
from commerce, in the exportation of their produce, yet, ab- 
stractedly speaking, it is their interest to send their produce 
in the vessels of whatever nation will carry it the cheapest. 
Every impediment that is thrown in the way of foreign na- 
tions is detrimental to their profits ; every advantage given to 
the shipping of the eastern states is a premium paid by them. 
This, I have shown, was manifest to the members from the 
south in the convention ; but they agreed, nevertheless, to en- 
ter the Union, upon comproniise^ without restricting the com- 
mercial states. Nov/, in 1789, when we began the experiment 
of the present constitution, the commercial states constituted 
the majority both in the senate and house of representatives. 
Since that period the wonderful increase of the population of 
the west, has added greatly to the political power of the agri- 
cultural states, and given them at least an equality in the 
house of representatives, and a majority in the senate. The 
uniform policy, however, of the legislature of the United 
States, has been to favour American tonnage, and American 
commercial interests, at the expense of foreigners ; and, in 
support of this policy, the southern members have laboured 
(5) 



34 

as strenuously as the eastern. Heavy duties have been laid 
on foreign produce, imported in foreign vessels, and compara- 
tively light duties on the same species of produce when im- 
ported in American vessels. Heavy tonnage duties have se- 
cured to the vessels of the eastern and middle states the al- 
most entire transportation of the produce of the southern 
states, and efTectually excluded foreigners from the coasting 
trade. But, Avithout minutely entering into the advantages 
which the commerce of the eastern states possesses, through 
the conformity of the south and west to the spirit of the con- 
stitution, I will confine myself to two recent cases, affording 
a decisive proof, if any were wanting, of the disposition of 
these portions of the Union, to sacrifice their own interests, 
to promote those of their eastern brethren. Both of these 
cases grew out of the policy of the British government to re- 
strain the transportation of the produce of its colonies to its 
own vessels. In 1817 the legislature of Nova Scotia forbade 
the exportation of plaster of Paris, except in British or colo- 
nial vessels, and thus cut off the vessels of the eastern states 
from a very lucrative carrying trade, which they had long 
possessed." To countervail this regulation, and with the hope 
of throwing open the trade again, a bill was brought into the 
house of representatives by Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, which, 
in the space of two weeks, passed both houses by great ma- 
jorities, and became a law. By this act, the importation of 
plaster of Paris in British vessels, was forbidden, and the 
l)enalty of a forfeiture of vessel and cargo, prescribed, for a 
violation of its provisions. Now, it doubtless occurred to the 
members from the southern states, that the Biitish government 
might, by way of retaliation, forbid the importation of cotton, 
tobacco, or rice, in American vessels, and thus materially check 
the sale of the chief articles of their produce. The proba- 
ble injury to their own interests, was, however, disregarded, 
when the question was, whedier those of their eastern bre- 
thren should I)e sacrificed. In a short time after this mea- 
sure was adopted, anoUier, more general and important, re- 
ceived the sanction of the members of the legislature from all 
sections of the Union. I allude to the great navigation act, 



35 

as it may be called, by which the colonial policy of the Bri- 
tish government, as regards their West India possessions, 
was counteracted. This decided and energetic measure, was 
warmly advocated by the southern and western members, and 
passed the senate bv nearly an unanimous vote, and the house 
of representatives by a great majority. At the last session of 
congress, notwithstanding the excitement which the unfortu- 
nate Missouri Question had created, when a bill to provide 
more effectually for the enforcement of the navigation act, 
was brought forward, it received the same decided support 
from the southern members in both houses. The follow- 
ing extract from a speech of Mr. Barbour, a senator from 
Virginia, delivered on the 6th of April, 1820, shows the 
views entertained of this subject by the southern people, 
and the Avarm and cordial sentiments still entertained, in 
that quarter of the Union, towards their eastern brethren. 
" There is one view of this subject," said this gentleman, 
" which I am anxious to press upon the senate. We have 
heard, during the present session, the harsh and discordant 
sound of disunion. We have been told that there exist sepa- 
rate views, interests, and feelings. A geographical line has 
been attempted to be set up. What a fine occasion does this 
present to silence these unhallowed insinuations ! The south 
and the north, the east and the west, uniting in a great mea- 
sure of policy, particularly, indeed, beneficial to one quarter 
of the Union, but cheerfully submitted to by the others, in 
furtherance of a national benefit. We will not permit any oc- 
casion of this kind to pass by, without disproving these sec- 
tional aspersions. We will cheerfully meet the sacrifice, if 
any should ensue ; and find our indemnity in the proud re- 
flection, that the interests of the xvhole^ constitute the polarity 
of all our movements. To the navy, I look, sir, as a great 
bond of union. You may divide territories ; you may claim 
a sectional share in victories by land ; but a naval victory is, 
from its nature, indivisible. We may be told of a Bunker's 
Hill, a Bennington, or Saratoga, on the one hand ; on the 
other, of the Cowpens, or Guilford, or York, or New Or- 
leans ; but a naval victory, broad as the element on v/hich it 



36 

is achieved, difFusL's equal joy and enthusiasm throughout the 
boundless territories of the republic."* What an unhappy 
contrast to the feelings and temper of this speech, is display- 
ed in some of the most prominent publications on this side of 
the Potomac .'f 

If, in answer to the inferences I have deduced from the con- 
currence of the southern members of congress, in measures 
tending peculiarh- to benefit the eastern people, it be said, that 
the interests of the agricultural south have been equally at- 
tended to at Washington, I am quite ready to admit the fact. 
It proves •what it is my object to have proven : that in the 
words of our common father "every portion of our country 
finds the most commanding motives for carefullv guarding 
and preserving the union of the whole. The norths in an un- 
restrained intercourse with the south^ protected by the equal 
laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the 
latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial 
enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industrv. 
The souths in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same 
agency with the north^ sees its agriculture grow and its com- 
merce expand." 

I have thus endeavoured to show, that compromise is at 
least not a new feature of our political history. I believe most 
readers will agree with me, that it has heretofore been the stay 
and foundation of our Union. It remains to show, that the 
compromise of the Missouri Question, as agreed to at the 
last session of congress, ought to be maintained in good faith 
by all the parties. If, on examining into our annals, we find 
that the most virtuous and enlightened of our statesmen have 
built our political system upon the foundation of compromise, 

• National IiUclligenccr, September 27, 1820. Tlic whole speech well de- 
serves perusal, both from llie force of the argument and the true American 
spirit it breathes. 

f If any ollifi- proof were wanting of llic conformity of tliesoutlicrn states 
to the spirit of the conslitiition, abundant evidence would be found in the 
proceedings of the last session of congress, at wiiich a retaliatory tonnage 
duty was imposed on French vessels, for the exclusive benefit of the ship- 
I'ing interest. 



■37 

that its efficacy and beauty have arisen from an abandonment 
of local views, prejudices, and passions, it is natural to sup- 
pose, that after thirty years experience of the blessings of that 
system, there could be nothing in the idea of compromise to 
startle either the moralist or the politician. 

From v/hat then has arisen the clamour against the Missouri 
compromise ? If it can be demonstrated, that it was prudent- 
ly entered into, even admitting it to be a choice of evils ; and 
that it is both our interest and duty to preserve it inviolate ; 
we must look to some of the causes which I have hinted at in 
a preceding page, for a solution of the question. 1. The pro- 
ceedings which led to the compromise of the Missouri Ques- 
tion must be fresh in the recollection of all my readers. The 
temper in which that " distracting question" was discussed by 
both parties ; the frightful consequences that appeared likely to 
ensue from the success of the friends of restriction ; could not 
fail to make a deep impression on the minds of all interested 
in the welfare of this country. To me it appears clearly es- 
tablished, that disunion, with its countless train of evils, would 
have followed from a refusal to admit Missouri into the fami- 
ly of states. In speculating upon future events, experience 
mihappily teaches us not to expect that political bodies or in- 
dividuals will always put themselves under the guidance of 
reason, and turn away from the suggestions of passion and 
present interest. If the southern members of congress had 
listened to the voice of wisdom, and looked forward to the 
future welfare of their posterity, the prosperity of the repub- 
lic, and the cause of humanity, the proposed restriction would 
have received an unanimous vote of approbation. Like their 
celebrated predecessors of 1787, they would have been fore- 
most in the great measure of arresting the march of slavery, 
and the future inhabitants of Missouri would have had cause 
to be grateful for another " immortal ordinance," as that of 
1787 has been so justly styled. Unfortunately, however, 
other views and feelings prevailed. Many no doubt believed 
that the constitutional power was wanting, but upon others 
the strong incentive of interest, added to that sensitive repug- 
nance to legislation on the subject of slavery, which has too 



88 

often prevailed, operated with powerful effect. It is plain, that 
those who seriously disbelieved in the power of congress to 
restrain the states, could not conscientiously give way. The 
worst altt-rnative was prt-ferable to a violation, as they sup- 
posed, of their duty. The arguments too by which others of 
the southern members supported what they conceived to be 
their inalienable rights, were sufficiently plausible. The ter- 
ritories of the United States being purchased with the blood 
and money of the entire nation, are as much the property of 
one portion or section as of another. If the restriction on 
Missouri were enacted, the southern citizen would be prevent- 
ed from removing thither with his agricultural stock. He 
would thus be deprived of equal rights with the inhabitants of 
other parts of the Union. Those who have reflected upon the 
strength with which the propensity to emigration acts upon the 
people of every part of this country, must be sensible that 
great obstacles are required to resist it. The stream must 
have an outlet, or it will break down the barriers intended to 
confine it. It was in vain to say to the southern people, it is 
not intended to throw any impediments in the way of your 
emigrating to Missouri. Whatever we may think, in this 
part of the Union, of the superior advantages of free labour, 
the southerrk agriculturalist considers the services of his slaves 
necessary to the successful cultivation of the soil. To pre- 
vent his availing himself of them in the new states, is tanta- 
mount to imposing an interdiction on himself, and would de- 
bar his entrance into what he considers with justice as the com- 
mon patrimony of the nation. The interdiction of slavery in 
Missouri, it was likewise contended, would increase the dangers 
to which the southern whites were exposed, by preventing such 
removal of their slaves as might reduce their comparative nu- 
merical strength in the elder states.* It was evident too that 
the value of slaves would be increased by a permission to 
transport them to Missouri. 

Urged on by interests and feelings of so powerful a nature, 
and supported by the persuasion that the constitutional power 
was not vested in congress, the southern states would proba- 

• Sec Note E. 



39 

biy not have given way. Every thing that appeared showed 
a disposition to maintain what they considered their rights, at 
every hazard. It was not, let it be remembered, an abstract 
principle alone for which they contended, but what appeared 
to them a clear and palpable interest. A determination to , 
withdraw from the Union, in case the house of representatives 
persisted in upholding the restriction, was boldly avowed even 
on the floor of congress. The speeches of one of the senators 
from Virginia, and of another from South Carolina, when ta- 
ken in connexion with the proposed resolutions of the Virgi- 
nia house of delegates, and their proceedings with respect to 
the appointment of electors of president, show too plainly what 
was intended. No one, I think, who has carefully attended 
to the proceedings of that memorable period, can hesitate to 
believe that an actual disruption of the ties which bound us to- 
gether would have taken place, if the compromise had not 
been effected. It is not requisite to produce this eifect that 
actual violence should be resorted to in the first instance. To 
resolve the confederacy into its original elements, open resis- 
tance is not necessary. The mere omission to appoint presi- 
dential electors, or to choose members of congress, would be 
a virtual destruction of the system. Congress may, it is true, 
direct a choice to be made by the people ,• but when the latter 
side with their state government, the mandate would be im- 
potent. 

But admitting that an actual dissolution did not take place, 
that a president and congress were still chosen by all the states, 
and that the senators and representatives from each state still 
attended at Washington, would not consequences only less dis- 
astrous than a dissolution have occurred ? Of what avail would 
be the deliberations of a congress in the temper that could not 
fail to be engendered ? What concert would take place 
between a senate and house of representatives, in one of 
which the eastern, and in the other of which the southern, in- 
terest predominated ? What measures in support of the com- 
merce and manufactures of the eastern and middle states could 
be expected from the southern members, when they saw no 
disposition on the part of the former to make reciprocal con- 



10 

cessions, and supposed their own peculiar interests neglected? 
No one can believe that the business of a single session could 
be transacted with such discordant materials. 

The compromise, then, I contend to have been wisely and 

j prudeiith- entered into, inasmuch as, without throwing open 
the whole IMissouri country to the pestilence of slavery, it 
saved us from the awful consequences of disunion. Admitting 

' it to be an evil that slavery is permitted in the state of Mis- 
souri, those of the eastern members who voted for the com- 
promise did so to avoid a greater evil. One of these gentle- 
men,* who had the courage to disregard the excitement of the 
moment, and who have subsequently been the objects of a 
coarse and vulgar persecution, has entered into an explanation 
of the motives which guided him in his vote on that momen- 
tous occasion. The following passages of his letter confirm 
the view I have taken of the subject, and vindicate the purity 
of his intentions : — " Soon after the commencement of the pre- 
sent session, a bill was introduced for the admission of Mis- 
souri into the Union. Mr. Taylor (a member from New- 
York) proposed an amendment, which prohibited the further 
introduction of slaves into the new state. At the request of 
the mover of this amendment^ the discussion of it was post- 
poned for some time, and a committee was appointed for the 
purpose of investigating ivhether a compromise coriki not be 
ffffctcd. During the agitated state of the public mind, the 
proposed restriction was discussed in both houses of congress. 
Much warmth and irritation was evinced ; and a dissolution 
of the Union was spoken of, as a consequence which would 
inevitably result from a question presenting a conflict of inter- 
est, and affecting us geographically. Before the report of the 
committee was made, I had a severe conflict in my mind, as 
to the course I ought to take. If I voted differently from 
what I had originally, I was aware that I should be charged 
by some with inconsistency, and perhaps by others with a de- 
reliction of principle. If I adhered to voting for the amend- 
ment, I saw no practical result from it : the question would 

• Mr. B. Smith, of New Jersey. 



41 

in all probability remain unsettled for a long time, and might 
ultimately lead to a cHssolution of the Unio7i. As the senti- 
ments of Washington and Jefferson made a deep impression 
on my mind at an early period of my life, they could not be 
viewed with indifference by me at a time when I was about to 
vote on the most important question that had been discussed 
in congress since the adoption of the constitution. After 
mature deliberation, I determined to vote in favour of the 
compromise J and I solemnly declare I did what I considered 
necessary to prevent a dissolution of the Union, It will be a 
source of regret to me, if any of my constituents should dis- 
approve of the course I have thus pursued : but, conscious of 
the rectitude of my intentions, and believing that I have con- 
tributed to save my country from a civil xvar^ I have secured 
the approbation of my own heart, which is more desirable than 
popularity, notwithstanding the desire I feel to preserve the 
confidence and esteem of my fellow citizens."* 

2. However much we may differ with respect to the expe- 
diency or necessity of the compromise, there ought, it appears 
to me, to be but one opinion on the propriety of maintaining 
its provisions inviolate. Every principle of honesty and good 
faith should urge us to adhere to it. It was well said by the 
able and patriotic editor of the Baltimore Weekly Register, 
that the circumstances under which this act was passed gave 
it a moral force and obligation equal in validitv to an injunc- 
tion of the constitution.! The Missouri Question indeed re- 
vived feelings and opinions which had slept since the forma- 
tion of that constitution; and the proceedings which led to the 
compromise were more like the negotiation of a compact be- 
tween sovereign and independent states, than the legislative 
discussions of the representatives of one people. The compro- 
mising acts were to all purposes a treaty between two sections I 
of the Union, to the performance of which the faith of both 
parties is pledged. If it had not been acted upon by either 
party, we of this quarter of the Union would still, I conceive^ 
be bound to the performance of what we have stipulated : but 

* National Intelligencer, September 18, 1820. f See Note F. 

(6) 



43 

the southern states having performed, as far as they were called 
upon, the conditions of the compact, relying upon the observ- 
ance of it on our part, we have no alternative left. The inhabi- 
tants of Maine, and those of Missouri, applied at the same time 
lor admission into the Union. The senate, which, as it contains 
a greater proportion of members from the " slave states" than 
the house of representatives, may be considered as the represen- 
tiition of the south, opposed the admission of Maine, until the 
pri\ ileges of Missouri should be recognised. For this purpose, 
the two states were connected in one bill, and the admission of 
Missouri was avowedly made a sine qua non to the admission 
of Maine. When the question came to be compromised, the 
southern states agreed, not only that Maine should be admit- 
ted into the Union, but that slavery should be prohibited in all 
the territories north of thirty-six degrees, on condition of the 
unrestricted admission of Missouri. Now, they have faith- 
fully performed that part of their stipulations which they had 
it in their power to perform. The state of Maine has been 
admitted into the Union, and the eastern interest has thus re- 
ceived an accession of two members in the senate. The faith of 
the southern states is undoubtedly engaged that the act restrict- 
ing the territories shall be adhered to. Shall then this treaty 
be broken by the eastern and middle states, after they have 
derived the advantage of a performance by the other party? 
Shall the dreadful example be set, of the violation of a solemn 
engagement between communities, who, above all others, 
should cherish the principles of honesty and good f;\ith to- 
wards each other? What answer will the representatives of 
the "free states" give to the remonstrances of those of the 
south, when they are reminded of the alarming crisis which 
existed when the compact was concluded, of the frightful 
prospect that lay before the Union, of the obstinacy with which 
both parties maintained their opinions and determinations, of 
the concessions made by the southern states, highly detrimen- 
tal as they conceived them to be to their interests, and of their 
immediate performance of their engagements ; and when they 
arc assured by the southern members of their determination 
rigidly to adhere to that part of them that is to be executed 



43 

hereafter, and apprized of the solemn obligation imposed upon 
the eastern states to carry into effect the single measure which 
they were bound by the compromise to perform ? Will it be 
said, in answer to this, that the majority in favour of the com- 
promise was so small as not to indicate the dispositions of the 
people of the " free states ?" It is sufficient to reply, that the 
act was passed by a majority of the representatives of the 
people, and, did they exceed the minority by only a single 
vote, the latter, by the constitution and the principles of equi- 
ty, are bound by it. But if the majority in the house of repre- 
sentatives was small, it was abundantly decisive in the senate, 
where the states meet each other as equal sovereigns. Two 
questions, it will be remembered, were disposed of in that 
body. On the question of striking out the restriction from the 
bill providing for the admission of Missouri, twelve states 
voted in the affirmative, six states voted in the negative, and 
three were divided. On the second question, of limiting the 
extension of slavery in the territories, sixteen states voted in 
the affirmative, four states voted in the negative, and two were 
divided. In the house of representatives, on the last question, 
eighteen states voted in the affirmative, three only in the nega- 
tive, and one was divided. The majority, in both cases, would 
seem to be sufficiently conclusive. 

Again, it has been urged by the opponents of the compro- 
mise, that the restriction on the territories lying north of thir- 
ty-six degrees and thirty minutes, being merely a legislative 
act, not binding on the successors of the present congress, may 
be repealed at any future period ; and thus, if Missouri be 
admitted into the Union, a great present evil will be tolerated, 
in consideration of a promised act which may never happen 
to be performed. Now nothing can be more irrational or un- 
just than this species of argument. Because it is supposed, 
by one party to a compact, that the other may possibly here- 
after refuse to comply with his agreement, the example is to 
be set of an immediate violation of it. In a dispute between 
individuals, no court of law would hear of such a plea. It is 
plain that those who have recourse to this kind of anticipation 
must suppose that the " slave states'" will at some future day 



44 

possess both the disposition and ability to prevent the execu- 
tion of this part of the act. Nothing is easier than to show 
that this supposition is altogether unfounded on reason, and 
not at all calculated to make a part in the chapter of probabi- 
lities. 

To argue on the presumption that the restriction on the ter- 
ritories is nothing more than a common legislative act, is to 
take for granted what I think it would be very difficult to 
prove. I have already shown, I conceive, that it must be 
regarded in a very different light, and that the honour and 
good faith of both parties are solemnly engaged to its entire 
performance. The eastern states, having admitted Missouri 
into the Union, will throw upon those of the south and west 
an obligation, which, as they value the union of the states and 
their own honour, they will be solicitous to fulfil. But, ad- 
mitting that the " slave states" may hereafter feel it to be their 
interest to extend the regions of slavery, that they may see in 
the compact nothing to bind their faith or their consciences, 
and supposing their members in congress to be unanimous in 
their disposition to repeal the act, will they possess the power 
to do so ? The " free states" have always heretofore had a 
majority in both houses of congress. Supposing Missouri to 
be admitted at the next session, with two senators and one 
representative, the numbers on each side will then stand thus: 

Free States. Slave States. 

New Hampshire, - - 2 Maryland, - - - - 2 

Massacluisesls, - • 2 Virginia, - - - - 2 

liliode Island, ... 2 Norlli Carolina, - • 2 

■\'crniont, .... 2 South Carolina, - . 2 

Connecticut, - . . 2 Georgia, - - - - 2 

New York, .... 2 Kentucky, ... - 2 

New Jersey, - - - 2 Tennessee, . - . - 2 

rennsylvania, - - - 2 Louisiana, . - - - 2 

Delaware,* .... 2 Mississipj)!, - - - 2 

Oliio, 2 Alahama, .... 2 

Indiana, 2 Missouri, .... 2 

Illinois, 2 — 

Miiinc, 2 . 22 

26 



45 

In the house of representatives, the relative strength of the 
" free states" is considerably greater. Supposing a bill to re- 
peal the limitation on the territories to pass the senate, it could 
not fail to be defeated in the lower house, as the following 
table will show : 



Free States. 




Slave States. 




•New Hampshire 


> 


6 


Maryland, ... 


9 


Massachusetts, 


. . 


13 


Virginia, . - - - 


23 


Rhode Island, 


. 


2 


Nortli Carolina, - - 


13 


Connecticut, - 


. 


7 


South Carolina, - - 


9 


Vermont, - - 


. . 


6 


Georgia, . . - - 


6 


New York, - 


• - 


27 


Kentucky, - . - - 


10 


New Jersey, - 


- - 


6 


Tennessee, . - - 


6 


Pennsylvania, 


- - 


23 


Louisiana, .... 


1 


Delawai-e,* - 


- - 


2 


Mississippi, . . - 


1 


niiin ... 




6 


Alabama, . . . - 


1 


\jiilUf • • • 

Indiana, - - 


. 


1 


Missouri, . - . - 


1 


Illinois, - - 


- . 


1 




— 


Maine, - - - 


. . 


7 




80 



107 



The majority, therefore, in the house of representatives, of 
the states opposed to the extension of slavery, is twenty-seven., 
a sufficient number, one would suppose, to quiet the fears of 
the alarmists for the present. Is there any probability that 
the present numerical superiority of the " free states" will be 
lessened at a future congress ? 

One of the strongest arguments adduced by the advocates 
of the expediency of restriction, was founded on quite a dif- 
ferent supposition. Reason, it was said, demonstrated, and 
statistical evidence proved, the pernicious effects of a state of 
slavery upon the population of a country. If the increase of 
population be governed by the product of the means of sub- 
sistence, it would follow, that as free labour is more produc- 



• I have included Delaware among the " free states," as it is known that 
the opinions of a great majority of her inhabitants are hostile to slavery, and 
her legislature was unanimous in the vote passed in favour of the restriction 
on Missouri. 



46 

tive than slave labour, so a free population would increase 
more rapidly than one in which there was any considerable 
admixture of slaves. The other checks, too, to a multiplica- 
tion of the human species, operate with much greater force in 
a community composed partly of slaves and partly of freemen, 
than in one which contains none or only a few slaves. Thus 
it was shown by Mr. Raymond, in his ingenious Essay on the 
INIissouri Question, that the white population in the old " free 
states," including the five New England states. New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, increased in a ratio 
of nearly one hundred per cent, in twenty years ; while that of 
Maryland increased at a rate of only thirteen per cent., Vir- 
ginia twenty-five per cent.. North Carolina thirty per cent., 
and South Carolina sixty-four per cent. What is more to the 
present purpose, is the fact, that during the period that inter- 
vened between the years 1790 and 1810, the whole population 
in the " free states" increased in a much greater ratio than the 
whole population in the "slave states." Thus, in 1790, New- 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Ver- 
mont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and 
the territory north-west of the Ohio, contained 2,027,238 
persons. In 1810, the same portion of country contained 
0,831,673;. — an increase of nearly ninety per cent. In 1790, 
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Kentucky, and Tennessee, contained 1,893,078 persons of all 
descriptions; and in 1810, 3,246,554; — an increase of little 
more than sixty-eight per cent. During this period, great 
addition was made to the number of slaves bv importation 
Irom Africa, in consequence of the near approach of the period 
at which, by the provisions of the constitution, the trade was 
to cease. The i)rincipal settlement, too, of the fertile countries 
of Kentucky and Tennessee, was made during this time, and 
great numbers emigrated thither from the eastern states. It 
is therefore proved, by evidence about which there can be no 
dispute, that notwithstanding the peculiar advantages which 
that portion of the United States in which slave labour is used 
enjoyed in tlie high price of its products, its population did not 
increase so rapidly as that of the " free states," by more than 
twenty per cent. 



47 

It is reasonable to suppose, that since the year 1810, the 
increase of the population in both quarters has been nearly in 
the same proportion. No general returns have been made 
since that period. The census which is now taking will eluci- 
date this and other important points in our statistics. In the 
meantime, a pretty accurate estimate of the present amount of 
our population may be gathered from the returns made to dif- 
ferent states, and from other authentic sources. The following 
calculation, copied from Mr. Niles's Register for February 
last, will probably be found to correspond very nearly with 
the official returns : 





Freemen. 


Slaves, 


Federal JVo. for 
repreee7itation. 


New Hampshire, 


260,000"^ 


"S ^ i?* 


260,000 


Massachusetts, - - 


510,000 


C3^ <-* .. — i 


510,000 


Maine, ----- 


300,000 




300,000 


Rhode Island, - - - 


85,000 


Z Hto-^ 


85,000 


Connecticut, - - - 


280,000 


3 ^r s "^ 


280,000 


Vermont, - - - - 


275,000 


m <5 to 3 


275,000 


New York, - . - . 


1,300,000 


these 
ing, tl 
stimat 
r is 10 


1,300,000 


New Jersey, - - - 


275,000 


275,000 


Pennsylvania, - - - 


1,100,000 


\lll 


1,100,000 


Delaware, - - - - 


80,000 


g <-► to 


80,000 


Ohio, 


580,000 


580,000 


Indiana, - . - . 


235,000 


cr _, fi> 
o 5 ,. 


235,000 


Illinois, 


125,000^ 


^■%o 


125,000 




5,405,000 


10,000 


5,405,000 




10,000 




Add 6,000 




5,415,000 


5,411,000 


Maryland, - - - 


- 290,000 


120,000 


372,000 


Virginia, ... 


. 630,000 


450,000 


900,000 


North Carolina, 


. 450,000 


180,000 


558,000 


South Carolina, 


. 250,000 


220,000 


382,000 


Georgia, - - ,- 


- 190,000 


130,000 


268,000 


Kentucky, ... 


. 520,000 


120,000 


592,000 


Tennessee, . . - 


- 340,000 


60,000 


377,400 


Louisiana, ... 


. 65,000 


75,000 


110,000 


Mississippi, 


. 50,000 


30,000 


68,000 


Alabama, . - - 


. 50,000 


30,000 


68,000 




2,845,000 


1,415,000 


3,694,400 


Add slaves. 


1,415,000 










Gross, - » 


4,260,000 







V 



48 

If wc add to this amount of 4,260,000, the population of 
JMissouri, estimated at 75,000, the whole number of persons 
in the "sia\e states" >vill be 4,335,000, giving the "free 
states" a majority of 1,080,000 : but as, by the constitution, 
three-fifths only of the slaves are represented, the actual 
political power of the "free states" will be to that of the 
"slave states" as 5,411,000 to 3,764,000. In the senate, the 
former will have twenty-six votes, and the latter twenty-two. 
In the house of representatives, if the ratio of representation 
remain as at present, the " free states" will have one hundred 
and fifty-four votes, and the " slave states" one hundred and 
seven. If, however, as is more probable, the ratio be fixed at 
40,fXX), the former will have one hundred and thirty-five votes, 
and the latter ninety-four. Such, or nearly similar, will pro- 
bably be the relative political strength of the two divisions of 
the Union, for several years. The admission of the territory 
of Arkansaw as a state, cannot be expected to take place for 
five or six years; and should slavery be tolerated in that coun- 
try, the strength of the "free states" in the senate will be 
maintained by the accession of Michigan. But, supposing 
two states to be carved out of the Arkansaw, and Florida to 
come into the Union, the preponderancy of the " free states" 
in the house of representatives must from the nature of things 
still be preserved, until the great territorv beyond the Mis- 
sissippi, north of tliirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, is 
ready to be admitted, with its unmixed population of freemen. 
After that, there can be no danger of the slave representation 
becoming too numerous. It is plain, then, that if the repre- 
sentatives of the "free states" think proper to maintain it, no 
alteration can be made in the law by which the line of demar- 
cation is fixed. 

Having thus, I thinl:, demonstrated that the political inter- 
ests of the " free states" will not materially suffer by the fulfil- 
ment on their part of the compact, one objection to the com- 
promise will l)e removed. It is contended, however, that since 
the last session of congress, a new case has arisen, in conse- 
quence of certain objectionable features of the constitution 
which the people of Missouri have adopted. It was agreed 



49 

by the compromise, It is said, that the abolition of slavery 
should not be required of Missouri ; but the framers of her 
constitution have gone beyond the bounds asked for by their 
friends in congress, and have introduced provisions which 
cannot be assented to without a violation of the paramount 
constitution of the United States, and a dereliction of all moral 
principle. 

The passages of the Missouri constitution, against which 
these objections are taken, appear to be the following: — 

Art. III. Sect. 26. " The general assembly shall have no 
power to pass laws, — 

" First^ For the emancipation of slaves without the consent 
of their owners, or without paying them, before such emanci- 
pation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated ; and 

" Second^ To prevent bona fide emigrants to this state, or 
actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United 
States, or from any of their territories, such persons as may 
there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the 
same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws 
of this state." 

" It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such 
laws as may be necessary, — 

'■'■ First^ To prevent fi-ee negroes or mulattoes from coming 
to and settling in this state, under any pretext whatever." 

Now, I am quite willing to admit that it would have been 
better if these clauses, especially the latter, had not been in- 
troduced : they savour too much of hostility to the feelings 
of the people in this part of the Union, on the unfortunate 
subject of negro slavery. The restriction, too, upon the 
emancipation of slaves, is absurd, because, as is justly stated 
by Mr. Niles, in his Register,* there is nothing to prevent 
the legislature from imposing any tax that they think proper 
on this species of property. But the question is not whether 
the provisions of a constitution are enacted with bad sense or 
bad taste, but whether that instrument is, upon the whole, such 
as may rightfully pass the ordeal of congress. I would, in the 
first place, observe, that it is not fair to point out the obnoxious 

• October 21, 1820. 
(7) 



50 

parts of such a charter, and to leave unnoticed such as may 
possil)ly rtdeem it. From the observations that have been 
made on the Missouri constitution, one would be led to sup- 
pose that it was conceived in a spirit repugnant to the prin- 
ciples of republicanism and Christianity, — that it was, in fact, 
a tissue of inhumanity and impolicy. How far this represen- 
tation of it is correct, will be seen by a few extracts that I shall 
make : " The general assembly shall have power to pass laws, 
to prohibit the introduction of any slave into this state, for the 
purpose of speculation, or as an article of trade or merchan- 
dise : to prohibit the introduction of any slave^ or the offspring 
of any slavc^ who heretofore may have heen^ or xvho hereafter 
may he^ imported from any foreign country into the United 
States^ or any territory thereof in contravention of any exist- 
ing statute of the United States: and to permit the owners 
of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, 
where the person so emancipating will give security that the 
slave so emancipated shall not become a public charge." Art. 
III. Sect. 26. The same section makes it the duty of the 
general assembly, to pass laws " to oblige the owners of slaves 
to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all injuries 
to them extending to life or limb." In the next section, we 
find the following provision : " In prosecutions for crimes, 
slaves shall not be deprived of an impartial trial by jury; and 
a slave convicted of a capital offence shall su^er the same de- 
gree of punishment^ arid no othcr^ than rvould be inficted on a 
white person for a similar offence; and courts of justice^ before 
whom slaves shall he tried^ shall assign them counsel for their 
defence.^'' Sect. 28. " Any person who shall maliciously de- 
prive of life cr dismember a slave, shall suffer such punishment 
as woidd be inflicted for the like offence if it xvere committed 
on a free luhite person^ Surely these provisions display no 
very inhuman spirit towards the slave population. They are 
carefully guarded from bodily injury; a fair trial is secured to 
ihcm ; and, from the provision respecting equality of punish- 
ment, we have a right to believe that the dreadful spectacle of 
burning a human being will not be witnessed in Missouri, as 
it has been recently in one of " the old thirteen states." The 
moral improvement of the whites seems also not to have been 



51 

forgotten in this constitution. Article VI. Sect. 1. " Schools, 
and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in 
this state;" the funds arising from lands granted by the United 
States, for the support of schools, are to be applied in strict 
conformity to the object of the grant ; and " one school or 
more, shall be established in each township, as soon as practi- 
cable and necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis." 
Sect. 2. Measures are to be taken for the improvement of 
such lands as may be granted for the support of a seminary 
of learning. The declaration of rights, subjoined to this in- 
strument, recognises and establishes '' all the great and essen- 
tial principles of liberty and free government." In every re- 
spect, save in those provisions which are held to interfere 
with its claim to admission into the Union, Missouri appears 
to me to have done herself credit by her constitution. 

In the next place, if Missouri is to be admitted without any 
restriction upon the right of holding slaves, (and if the princi- 
ples of the compromise be adhered to, she must be so admit- 
ted,) it is not easy to understand why she may not lawfully 
prescribe terms for their emancipation. If she is to be admit- 
ted on the same footing as her sister states, and she asks no 
more, she has an equal right with them to prohibit emancipa- 
tion without the consent of the owner of the slave. The con- 
stitution of Georgia, made in 1798, restricts the power of the 
legislature still more closely on this point. Those of Kentucky^ 
Mississippi^ and Alabama^ restrict the legislature in precisely 
the same terms. It is evident that the clause which the enemies 
of compromise appear now to considers© obnoxious, was copied 
literallv from the constitutions of the latter states, which were 
all submitted to congress for their approbation, and received 
the unconditional sanction of that body. If the three states I 
have named, were admitted without difficulty or objection, what 
reason is there for a discrimination in the case of Missouri ? 

But, it seems the provision respecting free negroes and 
mulattoes, is in violation of that article of the federal consti- 
tution which declares (Art. IV. Sect. 2,) that " the citizens of 
each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
ties of citizens in the several states ;" and consequently, tliat 



5^ 

until the prohibition of the settling of that description of per- 
sons in the state be repealed, Missouri cannot be admitted. 
Now, the first thing to be remarked upon this article of the con- 
stitution of tlie LJnited States, is, that it never has been, and 
never can be, literally enforced, until a complete amalgama- 
tion be made of the laws and customs of the different states. 
The rights and immunities of citizenship differ widely in al- 
most every state. A citizen of one has the right of holding 
slaves ; a citizen of another has the privilege of voting for i-e- 
presentativcs, without possessing freehold property, or even 
paying taxes; a citizen of a third state may have an immuni- 
ty from service in the militia. It was never supposed that in 
either of these cases, the privilege of citizenship went along 
with the individual into every other state to which he thought 
proper to emigrate. To preserve, as much as possible, to the 
states, the right of managing their own municipal concerns, it 
is necessary that this provision of the constitution should not 
be extended in its operation beyond what necessity requires. 

To understand fully the bearing of a constitutional or le- 
gislative provision, it is proper to inquire into the object its 
authors had in view, and the practice that has obtained under 
it. With the knowledge we possess of the opinions and views 
of the southern members of the convention, it is difficult to 
believe that it could have been their intention to include free 
negroes among the number of citizens to which this clause of 
the constitution refers. It was, as it still is, their policy to 
shut them out from their confines. Nothing could be more 
dangerous to their power over the slaves, than the residence 
among them of free negroes, with the privileges of citizens. 
The greater the privileges and immunities bestowed on this 
class by some of the " free states," the stronger reason would 
there be for the " slave states" to refuse them an equality of 
privilege. It would seem probable, therefore, that the only 
o!)ject contemplated Ijy the constitution, was the placing the 
Avhite citizens of each state on the same footing, to a certain 
extent. 'J'hat this is the true construction of the article, ap- 
])ears from all the proceedings that have taken place since the 
hjrmation of the constitution. In many states, a broad distinc- 



53 

tion has been made between whites and free negroes, which, 
if the latter ought rightfully to be comprised within the clause 
in question, is totally untenable. In the constitutions of some 
of the original states, the elective franchise, one of the first 
privileges of freemen, is confined to the whites. By the le- 
gislative acts of other states, they are expressly excluded from 
their territory^ under heavy penalties, and no objection has, I 
believe, ever been taken to this measure, on the ground of op- 
position to the constitution. A stronger proof, however, of the 
true construction of this clause, is to be found in the constitu- 
tions of the states that have been admitted since the adoption 
of the federal constitution. Kentucky, it will be remembered, 
was admitted shortly after that period, at a time when ma- 
ny members of the convention were in congress. The 8th sec- 
tion of the 2d article of her constitution, provides, that the 
privilege of voting for representatives shall belong to " every 
free male citizen," with certain qualifications, " negroes^ mit- 
lattoes^ and Indians^ excepted.'''' The constitution of Louisiana 
is equally explicit on this point ; " no person shall be a repre- 
sentative, who is not, at the time of his election, a free xvhite 
male citizen of the United States." (Art. II. Sect. 4.) " Eve- 
ry free white male citizen," with the usual qualifications, to 
be an elector. (Art. II. Sect. 8.) Similar provisions exist in 
the constitutions of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Alabama, and 
Mississippi. That of the last named state is sufficiently posi- 
tive and definite ; " no person shall be a representative, unless 
he be a ivhite man.^'' (Art. III. Sect. 4.) Now, it is impor- 
tant to bear in mind that the constitutions of the states I have 
enumerated, from Kentucky to Alabama, were successively 
presented to congress for their approbation, and were all ap- 
proved of by that body. The inference from this fact is un- 
avoidable, that they were believed by congress to contain no 
provisions inconsistent with the constitution of the United 
States. But, if any other than whites are to be considered as 
comprehended within the clause of the 4th article of that instru- 
ment, the provisions which confined the elective franchise and 
the power of being elected, to free whites, and expressly ex- 
cluded negroes, are plainly at variance with the constitution, 
A free negro, in New York, has the privilege of a citizen, in 



54- 

voting at public elections ; but he is denied that privilege in 
Kentucky, and Ohio, by the express words of their constitu- 
tions, which congress has approved. It follows that an inter- 
diction to the negroes of equal privileges with the whites, has 
been admitted by that body even in the constitutions of the 
states north-west of the Ohio. Why should not the construc- 
tion of the federal constitution thus given, be allowed to ope- 
rate in favour Missouri ? Her constitution it is true goes fur- 
ther, and makes it the duty of the legislature to pass such laws 
as may be necessary to prevent the emigration of free ne- 
groes ; but the principle is the same, and if persons of this de- 
scription are not considered citizens, there can be no violation 
of the constitution. If however this provision of the Missou- 
ri constitution must strictly be considered as interfering with 
that of the United States, this may perhaps be deemed a case 
in which a contravention of one of its articles, if ever allowable, 
might with some propriety be winked at. The free negroes arc 
justly considered as a great political evil in the states which 
;hey chiefly inhabit; they are depraved in their morals, debased 
in intellect, and unqualified to perform the duties of citizens. 
Even in the "free states" they form a dangerous class of the 
community, and while in the rest of the Union strenuous ef- 
forts are making to remove them out of the country, it would 
seem a great hardship upon the people of Missouri, if they 
were not allowed to close their doors from the first against 
their entrance, 

I come now to consider another objection to the compro- 
mise, one which has been repeatedly urged, and is calculated 
to make ai\ impression on many worthy members of the com- 
munlt)'. 

'inhere can be no compromise of a principle, it is said. What 
is morally right must be expedient. Political considerations 
ought never to interfere with the enforcement of the dictates 
of humanity. " Wc would acquiesce," says one of the prin- 
cipal oi)ponents of the comjiromise, " in great sacrifices of a 
ynerely material nature^ for the permanence of the Union. 
Hut there are discernible limits to sacrifices even of that de- 
scription ; and with regard to some of a different kind wc 
would nt\er consent that they .should be made on any account.''^ 



55 



" The integrity of the Christian and republican conscience is 
paramount to every other consideration." " The noruslave 
holding states, as they are called, with those -which must fall 
into their system of action, not only could exist in a separate 
confederacy^ but would be sure to flourish and maintain them- 
selves in independence and prosperity against all the world." 
" Possessing the main strength of the Union in every respect, 
thev may well meet with equanimity all menaces from the 
other part, of defection and violence ; and it would be their 
duty rather to risk the execution of them than to surrender 
any one great principle^ essential to the honour and true wel- 
fare of the whole, and consecrated by reason, as a part of the 
religion of human nature."* The inference to be drawn from 
these propositions, as applied to the Missouri Question, is no 
other than this, that the principles of religion and morality re- 
quire of us to adopt measures for the benefit of a particular 
part of our population, let the consequences to the remaining 
portion be what they may : that the peace and prosperity of 
eight millions of freemen and Christians, may rightfully be 
sacrificed to promote the welfare of a million and a half of 
slaves. 

Now, were there no examples in the history of mankind, 
were there none in our own history, of the admission of the 
question of expediency into a discussion of morals by w^ise 
and virtuous men, reason might still demonstrate, that, to be 
practically serviceable to humanity, philanthropists must be 
governed by considerations of expediency. " Moral philoso- 
phy," says a great authority on this subject,! " cannot pro- 
nounce that any rule of morality is so rigid as not to bend to 
exceptions." " Veracity, which seems, if any be, a natural du- 
tv, is excused in many cases towards an enemy, a thief, or a 
madman. The obligation of promises, which is a first prin- 
ciple in morality, depends upon the circumstances in which 
thev were made : and so of most other general rules, when 
they come to be actually applied." If by complying stricdy 
with any moral obligation in a particular case, we should be 
likely to do more real injury than service to mankind, it is 

• Prospectus of the Xalional Gazette, p. 11. t Archdeacon Pale}-. 



56 

clear, Unit it would be morally inexpedient to do so. For in- 
stance, slavery is a great evil, and all men may be said to bo 
under a moral obligation to put a period to it. But if in a 
tommunitv where any considerable proportion of slaves exists, 
greater evil would be produced by their entire and immedi- 
ate emancipation, than by retaining them in bondage, neither 
morality nor reason would require their emancipation. " To 
ha\c discharged slaves from all obligation to obey their mas- 
ters," says Paley, when accounting for the silence of the Scrip- 
tures on the subject of slavery, " which is the consequence of 
pronouncing slavery to be unlawful, would have had no better 
effect than to let loose one half of mankind upon the other. 
The most calamitous of all contests, a bcllum servile, might 
probably have ensued, to the reproach, if not the extinction, of 
the Christian name."* Beattie expresses similar ideas of this 
moral duty. " I cannot blame the present race of planters for 
not giving liberty to their slaves ; when I consider that so 
many savage men, set free at once, might annul the property 
and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent persons, and 
perhaps involve the whole empire in confusion."| Now, if 
slavery be an evil and a crime, and if in all cases measures for 
the removal of moral evil are to be pursued at every hazard, 
it ought not to be continued an hour, no, not an instant after 
it becomes possible to extirpate it. Not merely are those who 
hold slaves bound to emancipate them at once, but those who 
possess the pecuniary means, or the physical force, are equally 
under an obligation to tear the shackles off the slaves in every 
(juarter of the globe. The true reason why this is not attempted, 
is because the evils of emancipation would be greater than those 
of slavery ; in other words, that though it is morally wrong to 
hold nun in bondage, yet it is both morally and politically in- 
expedient to emancipate any great number of them at once. In 
fact, history furnishes us with frequent examples of this spe- 
cies of compromise, in which a lesser w'rong has been tolerat- 
ed, that a greater evil might be avoided. 1. I have adverted 
in a preceding page to the compromise which was entered into 

• Moral Pliilosopliy, Hook III. Part 2. 

t Elements ol" Moral Science, Tart III. Chap. 3. 



57 

In the convention, on the subject of the slave trade, an evil 
at least as great as the extension of slavery. The question 
there was, what humanity would gain by the decision, and 
the illustrious men who formed the constitution, satisfied 
themselves that it would be better on the whole that a tempo- 
rary permission was given to the continuance of the traffic, than 
that the union of the states should be jeopardized. It should 
not be forgotten, that Washington concurred in the propriety 
of this compromise, he who was a sincere and fervent Chris- 
tian, who was scrupulously exact in the performance of all 
moral duties, and who has left it as his recorded belief, that 
" there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there 
exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble 
union between virtue and happiness — between duty and ad- 
vantage ; — between the genuine maxims of an honest and mag- 
nanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity 
and felicity. That we ought to be no less persuaded that the 
propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a na- 
tion that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which 
heaven itself has ordained." 

2. A precedent still more in point, may be found in the 
system pursued by the general government, in relation to this 
very question of the extension of the right of holding slaves, 
as it affected the new states east of the Mississippi. Since the 
adoption of the constitution, seven new states have been carv- 
ed out of the territory which belonged to the United States, 
previous to the treaty by which Louisiana was acquired. Of 
these, five, namely Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala- 
bama, have been admitted without any stipulation or restric- 
tion on the subject of slavery. The remaining three, Ohio, 
Indiana, and Illinois, consented to prohibit slavery. It is 
evident, that without any express legislative enactment, or 
written compromise, an understanding existed between the 
" free" and " slave states," that slavery should be tolerated 
within a certain line, and excluded beyond it. That line was 
formed by the course of the Ohio, from the latitude of forty- 
one degrees, in which it leaves Pennsylvania, to its junction 
with the Mississippi. The celebrated ordinance of 1787, ex- 
(8) 



58 

eluded shucrv from the territory north-west of this river^ but 
uhen its provisions were applied to the south-western territo- 
ry, the article forbidding slavery was expressly excepted. 
Now here is something, which if not an actual compromise 
between philanthropy and political expediency, bears at least 
a strong resemblance to it. The rulers of the nation appear 
to me to have been under an equally strong obligation to pro- 
hibit slavery, south of the Ohio, as their successors are now 
said to be under to prohibit it south of thirty-six degrees and 
thirty minutes. It will probably not be contended, that the 
obligation is stronger west of the Mississippi than east of that 
river. Yet it does not appear that the philanthropists of that 
time felt it to be a matter of conscience with them, to oppose 
the admission of Kentucky, or Tennessee, or Mississippi, or 
Alabama, because slavery is recognised in their constitutions. 
In consenting to ratify a tacit agreement, which had in view 
the preservation of the harmony of the Union, and conse- 
quently the " true welfare of the whole," they could not have 
supposed that they were " surrendering any great principle," 
or violating " the integrity of their Christian and republican 
conscience." 

3. I have yet another example to produce of an acquiescence 
in the existence of a modified and limited evil, by enlightened 
and philanthropic statesmen ; and as the specimen is taken from 
the political history of a nation, who have certainly persuaded 
themselves, if not us, that " they are the freest and most moral 
people of which there is any memorial,"* it may have greater 
weight than any that might be drawn from the annals of this re- 
publican and unpretending country. I allude to the treaties that 
have been formed by the British government for the suppression 
of the slave trade. It is not material what objects the present mi- 
nistry may have had in view in effecting the abolition, whether 
they sincerely desired to ameliorate the condition of Africa, or 
wished to obtain a monopoly of the power of raising colonial 
produce. If their conclusions have received the approbation 
and sanction of those distinguished philanthropists, to whose 
opinions we in this country, and especially that portion who 
oppose the compromise, pay so much respect, they may serve 

• Ediuburgh Review. 



59 

to instruct and edify those who are averse to making- any bar- 
gain with evil. It is well known, that after labouring for 
twenty years, Mr. Wilberforce and his friends succeeded in 
effecting an abolition of the slave trade by British vessels, in 
1806. It was soon found that unless other persons concurred 
in the measure, no great benefit would accrue to Africa. Ne- 
gotiations were consequently opened, but with little success 
until the period of the general peace. The principal obsta- 
cles arose from Finance, Spain, and Portugal. The first of 
these powers agreed to abolish the trade at the expiration of 
five years, and the British government consented by treaty, 
that a traffic should be continued for that space of time, which 
they in the same breath pronounced to be " repugnant to the 
principles of natural justice and of the enlightened age in 
which we live." It was contended in parliament, when this 
treaty was laid before them, that no compromise of the great 
principle of abolition should have been entered into, and that 
it was preferable to have continued the war, rather than to 
have acceded to it. But the majority of the parliament ap- 
proved of the treaty, on the ground that it was better to admit 
of a partial evil than to risk greater mischiefs, by striving after 
too much. " Morals," said lord Castlereagh on this occasion, 
''were never well taught by the sword ; their dissemination 
might sometimes be made a pretext for ambition, but the real 
object could not be long concealed, and it was to the light of 
experience, to the promulgation of wisdom, and not to the ex- 
ercise of violence, or the influence of war, that they could 
look with any prospect of success for the abolition of the slave 
trade." " If France could not be persuaded to act in the 
manner desired, she could not be compelled to it, nor was it 
to be expected that she should be taught morality at the point 
of the bayonet."* Portugal likewise agreed to abolish the 
traffic in a certain number of years. The treaty with Spain 
however is more in point, as we find gcograpliical lines laid 
down in it exactly as in the treaty between the " free" and 
" slave states," respecting the Missouri Question. In 1814, 
that power consented to abolish the trade in a fixed number 

• Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, \iA. XXVIll. p. 28 >. 



60 

of years. In the succeeding year, the allied so\ creigns issued 
a public declaration on this subject. After denouncing the 
" African slave trade," as " repugnant to the principles of hu- 
manity and of universal morality," they proclaimed, that ^' the 
public voice in all civilized countries demanded that it should 
be suppressed as soon as possible," and that it was especially 
the desire of these " august sovereigns," that "• an end should 
be put to a scourge which has so long desolated Africa, de- 
graded Europe, and afflicted humanity." 

With such high authority to support them, the British 
government commenced fresh negotiations with Spain. If 
they had a right to ask any thing of her, it could have been 
nothing short of a total and immediate abolition of a traffic, 
the character of which had been so forcibly stamped. Ac- 
cording to the principles of some of the advocates of the 
Missouri Question, there could have been no half-v/ay mea- 
sures, no paltering with humanity, no sacrifice of conscience. 
Had the enemies of our compromise been the negotiators on 
that occasion, it is evident that, consistently with their de- 
clared opinions, they must have insisted upon a surrender 
of every thing by the Spanish government ; and, if this had 
been refused, either have lost everything, or involved the two 
countries in war, and drenched the fields of Europe again in 
blood. Lord Castlereagh and his colleagues, however, it 
seems, were of opinion that this mode of proceeding would 
not have been exactly consonant with the principles of Chris- 
tianity. Finding that his Catholic majesty had insuperable 
objections to an entire abolition, the British ambassador con- 
cluded a treaty, in 1817, by the provisions of which, the traf- 
fic, so far as it respected Spanish vessels, was confined to that 
part of the coast of Africa xvh'ich lies south of the equator^ 
and was to be interdicted altogether at the expiration of three 
years. Here, then, we have a precedent for lines of demarca- 
tion. " The barbarous and unchristian traffic" was legalized 
■within a fixed limit : " the scourge which had desolated Afri- 
ca" was now only to desolate it south of the line : " Europe" 
was only " to be de^adcd" to a certain extent, and " humani- 
ty" to be " afflicted" by metes and boundaries. " What an 



61 

outrage upon true philanthropy !" no doubt the advocates ot" 
the restriction are ready to exclaim : " What a base desertion 
of principle ! What a sacrifice of the immutable and unbending 
rules of morality, to the paltry consideration of expediency ! 
Surely all Christendom was moved to protest against this 
treaty. Doubtless that venerable body, the British parliament, 
refused to ratify it. At all events, such men as Wilberforce 
and Mackintosh must have raised their voices against it." Let 
us see how far this supposition is supported by facts. 

The treaty was taken into consideration, in the house of 
commons, on the 9th of February, 1818. In proposing a re- 
solution to carry its purposes into effect, lord Castlereagh ex- 
pressed his confidence that " the house would be satisfied of 
their object and effect being most beneficial." " There was no 
slave trade now north of the line ; it could be carried on by 
possibility only to the southward of the line, from May, 1820." 
" One great portion of the world was rescued from the horrors 
of this traffic, aggravated as it must be by contraband specu- 
lators." " On the whole, he hoped that there would be but 
one feeling of gratitude to Spain^ for an exertion ivhich ivas 
so much to her honour^ and to the benefit of the xvorld^ — an 
exertion, he said, for it was a great exertion on her part." 
3Ir. Wilberforce declared, that " as one most seriously inter- 
ested in the abolition of the slave trade, he must sav that he 
thought the noble lord entided to his warmest gratitude, for 
the efforts which he had made, during a long course of diplo- 
matic attention to the subject, and for the successful issue to 
which he had eventually brought those efforts." " The nego- 
tiation which led to the treaty now under the consideration of 
the committee, had been a very protracted one : he was per- 
suaded that Its favourable termination arose in a great measure 
from the foundation laid at the congress at Vienna ; and he 
congratulated the British government on having, in conjunc- 
tion with the other great powers of Europe, established those 
principles which led to so important a result." " It was not 
fair to estimate the whole of the benefit to be derived from the 
measure, from looking at it singly," &c. Sir James Mackin- 
tosh " approved the present treaty in the higheat degree."" 



6^3 

" He considered the immediate prohibition of the Spanish 
slave trade on the north of the equator, and the establishment 
of the right of search to enforce it, as a most important step 
towards the still distant point of general abolition." Mr. C. 
Grant said, " he would not trouble the house with many ob- 
servations, as it appeared to be uiianimous in its approval of 
the present treaty.''"'* The treaty was in fact approved of by 
a vote nearly unanimous. Not a word appears to have been 
said, in or out of parliament, of the impropriety of a compro- 
mise of this question, We hear nothing of " keen sarcasms" 
against " men whose principles of morality and religion were 
bounded by the equator." It was nowhere urged, that " any 
mere disaster is preferable to the commission of crime." The 
English government and people conceived that Spain had done 
much for the cause of humanity, when, in spite of interest and 
prejudice, she agreed to confine the evil within a certain bound- 
ary. Under this belief, they cheerfully ratified the treaty, and, 
as I conceive, acted with prudence and good sense. If, in 
answer to this, it be said that the proceedings between inde- 
pendent sovereigns furnish no precedent in point with the 
Missouri Question, because a broad distinction may be taken 
between the right which a government possesses to control the 
actions of its subjects, and the claim of one nation to interfere 
with another, I reply, that the distinction, as applied to this 
case, is more specious than real. The slave trade was con- 
trary to natural justice, it violated the natural law, and had 
been denounced by the general congress of Europe. If the 
position taken by a writer in a paper of high authority on this 
subject be correct, that the federal government, having it in its 
power to prevent the extension of slavery to Missouri, and not 
exercising that power, became accessary to the commission of 
crime,! then Great Britain must have been equally accessary 
to the continuance of the slave trade, since a single squadron 
of her " thousand ships" would have been sufficient to sweep 
this unrighteous traffic from the surface of the ocean. She 
possessed the power, therefore, and the right, I^ecause, aften 

• Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol, XXX VIT. 
j National Gazette, No. IV. 



63 

the declaration of the congress of Vienna, the slave trade might 
be considered as little better than piracy. Thus, although I 
admit that in most cases one nation has no right to interfere 
with the actions of another not injurious to herself, yet I con- 
sider the question of the slave trade one in which it was lawful 
to interpose. The question of expediency was quite a different 
one. I have endeavoured to show, too, that the discussion 
and result of the Missouri Question, at the last session, re- 
sembled in many points the negotiation of a compact between 
independent communities.* 

In considering the compromise of the Missouri Question, 
then, I conceive we have a right to ask what humanity will 
gain by a fulfilment of its provisions, and what she would lose 
by a rigid adherence to the supposed moral obligation of ex- 
cluding slavery from all the countries over which we have a 
right to legislate. 

It is an important fact, one which ought constantly to be 
borne in mind in the contemplation of this subject, that pre- 
viously to the last session of congress, no interdiction existed 
against slavery in any part of the great territory ceded by 
France in 1803. From the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean, 
from the Gulf of Mexico to the extreme northern boundary of 
the United States, it was politically lawful to hold human be- 
ings in bondage. East of the Mississippi, a line of demarca- 
tion between the territory in which slavery is tolerated, and 
that from which it is excluded, had existed for many years. 
The Ohio, from the latitude of 41° to that of 37% at which it 
enters the Mississippi, formed the boundary. The medium 
of its course would be the parallel of 39°, which may be con- 
sidered for the present purpose as the line east of the Missis- 
sippi. If, two years ago, it had been proposed to continue 
that line west of the Mississippi to the Spanish boundary, it 
is reasonable to believe that there would have been a ready 
acquiescence on the part of the " free states," and that the 
cause of freedom and philanthropy would have been consider- 
ed to have gained a great triumph. Now, although the north- 

• See Note G. 



64 

crn boundarv of Missouri is about a degree and a half north of 
the parallel of 39°, yet as by the compromising act slavery is 
only permitted south of 36° 30', the gain west of the Missis- 
sippi has been very considerable. In other words, if the me- 
dium line of the parallel of 39° had been carried across the 
Mississippi, the whole of the present state of Missouri (with 
the exception of a narrow slip of territory) and a large tract of 
country which is now given up to free population, would have 
fallen within the line of slavery. Humanity therefore has 
gained, by the present arrangement, more than she did east of 
the Mississippi. 

But it is impossible to look at the map of the country be- 
tween the Mississippi and the Pacific, without perceiving that 
the theatre of slavery has shrunk into a very narrow compass, 
and being made sensible of the extreme impolicy of any mea- 
sures that could possibly put to hazard the great gain that has 
been effected. If we take the boundary of the United States 
west of the Mississippi to be such as it was settled by the 
treaty with Spain of February, 1819, which will exclude the 
province of Texas, the territory within which slavery may 
hereafter exist will be found to bear about the same compari- 
son to that from which it is to be excluded, that Virginia does 
to the whole United States east of the Mississippi. South of 
the parallel of 36° 30', tlie territory of the United States con- 
tracts almost to a point. The number of square miles within 
the slave district, including Missouri and I^ouisiana, may be 
estimated at about 170,000; while the area of the district 
north of 36° 30', excluding IMissouri, is probably not less than 
1,500,000 square miles. If two new " slave states" may exist 
south of the line, there is room for twenty " free states" north 
of it. The most zealous enemy of the compromise must, I 
think, admit, that considering all circumstances, a great point 
has been gained, in fixing the line of demarcation so far south. 

If the cause of humanity will gain considerably by the ful- 
filment of the compromise, I think it apparent that it will lose 
much, if not every thing, by an adherence to the determina- 
tion of excluding slavery from Missouri and Arkansaw. The 
act of March last, which received the sanction of both houses 



65 

of congress, and was approved of by the president, authorized 
tile people of the territory of Missouri to form for themselves 
a state constitution and government, and declared that the 
state thus formed should be admitted into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original states. With this charter be- 
fore them, the people of that district have appointed delegates 
to frame a system of government. A convention has assem- 
bled, and, after full discussion, has solemnly adopted a consti- 
tution, which they have bound themselves and their constitu- 
ents to support. In conformity with that constitution, the 
government has been organized, and has gone into operation. 
A governor and legislature have been elected. The legislature 
has commenced the exercise of its functions. Senators and 
representatives in congress, and presidential electors, have 
been chosen. We will suppose that the house of representa- 
tives of the United States rejects the constitution of Missouri, 
and refuses to admit her representative to a seat. What course 
will the senate pursue ? Will that body appi-ove of the con- 
stitution, and admit the senators elected under it to the exer- 
cise of their rights ? If such should be their determination, 
in what situation would the country be placed, with a contest 
of such a nature as would necessarily follow between the two 
houses ? Admitting, however, that the senate abides by the 
decision of the other house, and that Missouri is denied ad- 
mission into the Union. Her delegates return home with the 
information that this sovereign and independent state, for such 
it has become by the authority of congress, is excluded from 
the confederacy. What course is left for the people of Mis- 
souri to pursue ? They have an organized administration, a 
legislature, an executive, a judiciary, and all the necessary 
agents and machinery of government. Can any one, not 
wilfully blind to the consequences, doubt that an attempt will 
be made to get on without the assistance and control of conr 
gress ? It has been remarked by Europeans, tliat the ann of 
government is never seen in the United States. This is on 
some accounts more true of the western states than of their 
Adantic brethren. The blessings o f the federal system are not 
so clearly visible in the former : its power is still less so. Thtt 
(9) 



66 

main business of government is performed by the state func- 
tionaries ; and such is the distance of some of the recent states, 
that the tie of dependence becomes much less apparent. The 
general government is known to them in hardly any other capa- 
city than that of a great landholder and collector of purchase 
moneys; and its visitations are not much more acceptable than 
those of private persons with similar claims. It would re- 
quire, therefore, neither great changes nor great exertions, on 
the part of the people of Missouri, to enable them to under- 
take business on their own account. Their internal arrange- 
ments are perfected ; and if they are thrown out of the attrac- 
tion of the present sphere, it by no means follows that they 
may not revolve in another system. 

If the lociU situation of Missouri were different from what 
it is, were she placed in the vicinity of states hostile to the 
principles for which she is contending, she might be made 
sensible both of the beneficial influence of the general govern- 
ment in suppressing state animosities, and of its power upon 
herself. But a glance at the map is sufficient to show that 
she has little to fear from her neighbours. On her right are 
Louisiana, and the Arkansaw territory ; in front of her right 
flank, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky, states whose 
population and policy are the same, and whose feelings on the 
subject of negro slavery, and of state rights, are certainly not 
such as to induce them to volunteer to prove to her the dis- 
advantages of being out of the pale of the Union. To the 
north-east, it is true, is the state of Illinois ; but when it is re- 
membered that both the senators from that state voted against 
the restriction, it will be seen that Missouri has not much to 
apprehend from that quarter. On her left flank, and in her 
rear, is a vast tract of unsettled country. 

Under these circumstances, Missouri, possessing a state 
government in full operation, and surrounded by friendly pow- 
ers, may be disposed, perhaps, to determine the question whe- 
ther liberty, security, and prosperity, cannot be enjoyed with- 
out the aid of the United States, if the doors of the confedera- 
tion are shut against her admission. Could the voice of an 
bumble individual be heard amid the tumult of party, I would 



67 

say to the opponents of the compromise ; In excluding Mis- 
souri from the Union, you adopt a measure pregnant with 
the most disastrous consequences. No matter how it was 
obtained, an act was passed, authorizing the people of Mis- 
souri to form a state constitution, and it has accordingly been 
formed. You cannot undo what has been done. You cannot, 
if you would, send the people back to their former territorial 
government. A constitution is too solemn a thing to be trifled 
with. The people of Missouri having, after full discussion, 
refused to provide against slavery by that instrument, pride 
at least will induce them to persist in that determination, if 
congress make the alteration of their charter a sine qua non 
of their admission. Nothing but a choice of evils will then 
be left to the federal government. If they simply leave Mis- 
souri out of the Union, and allow her to manage her concerns 
in her own way, what an alarming precedent will be set! Will 
not the other states in that quarter, come, in time, to exercise 
the same privilege ; and seeing Missouri get on without it, 
will they not be led to think that the expense of a general go- 
vernment may very well be saved ? Or, if the necessity of 
a confederacy is still perceived, will not one which may con- 
sult western interests and feelings only, be preferred ? 

Will you proceed with the business of legislation as if Mis- 
souri formed part of the Union ? Will you, in opposition to 
the principle of all others the most deeply engrafted on the 
minds of the people, impose direct or internal taxes upon the 
people of Missouri, without allowing them a representation in 
the public councils ? It will perhaps be answered, that Mis- 
souri may be considered as still in a territorial condition, and 
taxed accordingly. It is plain this cannot be admitted. The 
consent of congress, which is necessary to her entrance into 
the confederacy, is not now necessary to her existence as a 
sovereign and independent state. She has become such al- 
ready by virtue of an act of congress. Will you attempt to 
enforce your paramount authority, and execute your laws in 
defiance of her constituted authorities ? Alas ! this would be 
u.frightful spectacle for humanity. The means to obtain suc- 
cess are not in your power. You could not employ regular 



68 

troops on such an occasion; and if you could, the whole re- 
gular army of the United States would be insufficient. You 
would find, to your cost, that the militia of the western states 
could not be drawn out against their brethren. To send the 
eastern militia, no matter in what number, across the AUe- 
ganies and down the Ohio, would be little short of madness. 
Let it not be forgotten, too, that this would be a contest not 
between an effective government and a body of malecontents, 
but between two organized and established governments ; one 
identified with the interests and passions of the people, the 
other holding by a slight grasp to its constituents, and divided 
within itself by contending parties. In such a contest the is- 
sue would not be doubtful for a moment. Let us suppose, 
however, the power of the general government to have finally 
triumphed, and the restriction on INIissouri to have been ef- 
fected to the utmost extent that its most ardent advocates 
could desire. It is impossible, when we reflect on the well 
known disposition of the western states, to believe that this 
end can be attained without a long and arduous struggle. 
Civil war, with its hideous train of calamities and crimes, 
rapine, pillage, and devastation, the destruction of human life, 
the extinction of all the kindly feelings of brotherhood, and 
the lighting up of all the fierce and vindictive passions of our 
nature, will be the inevitable result. Are the enemies of the 
compromise prepared to meet these consequences ? Does 
humanity require such sacrifices on her altar ? Will not the 
future historian say, when he recounts the progress of intes- 
tine discord, " the waste, the wo, the bloodshed, and the tears," 
that will have followed the attempt to enforce the restriction, 
that philanthropy was not the gainer, when, for the sake of 
excluding a small number of a vile and wretched race from a 
narrow strip of territory, that country was made the bloody 
arena of civil conflict, and the grave of thousands of a lofty 
and virtuous people. 

Let me suggest one more consideration to the advocates of 
the restriction, — a consideration which may have more weight 
than any that could be drawn from the probable future situa- 
tion of the whites, with a certain class " whose philanthropy 
is never warmed but towards the savage, the mulatto, and the 



69 

slave."* The dissolution of the Union, or even such events 
as would place Missouri out of the pale of the confederation, 
would Inevitably lead to the extension of slavery over the 
whole territory west of the Mississippi. Of the probability 
of this result, it appears to me, no reasonable man can doubt. 
What, but the principle of compromise and the love of har- 
mony, has induced the people of the southern and western 
states to consent to a line of demarcation by which they are 
hereafter to be cooped up in a corner of the great commons of 
the republic ? Let these motives be withdrawn, and we shall 
find them pursuing their immediate interests without restraint. 
Again, Missouri independent, supported or even not opposed 
by the states immediately around her, and commanding by her 
situation the navigation of the noble river from which she de- 
rives her name, may at no distant day be able eifectually to pre- 
vent the execution of any act of congress in the territories 
behind her. The dykes which the friends of humanity have 
raised against the encroachment of slavery will thus be thrown 
down, its dark waves will pour like a torrent over the regions 
of the west, and crime and misery, instead of being, as now, 
confined within a narrow compass, will be extended to, and 
perpetuated in, an almost boundless tract of country. W'hen 
these things come to pass, as, unless Providence interposes 
by some especial miracle, they in all human probability will, 
what will be the reflections of those who now oppose the com- 
promise ? The sincere but mistaken philanthropists may con- 
sole themselves with the belief, that however disastrous the 
result of their measures, they were governed by pure motives : 
but those (if there be such) who urge this question with the 
view of pushing their own political aggrandizement, will have 
no refuge from the condemnation of posterity. 

It is to be hoped, however, that a wiser and more Christian 
spirit will prevail in the councils of the nation; — that this 
youngest of the sister states will be freely and cheerfully ad- 
mitted to an enjoyment of equal privileges with the other 
members of the confederacy; — and that the harmony of the 
Union, upon which the glory and prosperity of the republic 
depend, will remain unimpaired. 

• Edinburgti Review. 



NOTES. 



NOTE A— Page 6. 

IT was one of the unfortunate effects of the mere agitation of 
the Missouri Question, to stir up jealousies between different sec- 
tions of our country, which had been long dormant, and to give a 
keener edge to the local animosities that still prevailed. In the 
excitement of the moment, feuds as ancient as the settlement of 
the country were revived, and wounds, which an union of thirty 
years as one nation had in a great measure healed, Avere again 
opened. Northern interests and southern interests, eastern prin- 
ciples and western views, were in the mouths of all the speakers, 
while the highest and noblest interest of all, that of the republic, 
seemed to be nearly lost sight of. A strong proof of the exist- 
ence, or, as it may perhaps be moi'e properly termed, the resur- 
rection of an antifederal disposition at that period, is afforded by 
the debate in the house of representatives, on the 3d of February 
last, on the question of publishing the secret journal of the old 
congress, from 1783 to 1787. Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina, 
who had himself been a member of that congress, advocated the 
publication, in a speech, the object of which evidently was to im- 
press on the western states north of the Ohio, that those of the 
east were hostile to their interests, and thus perhaps to detach 
them from the support of the restriction on Missouri. This pur- 
pose was to be effected by retailing what he supposed to be a 
piece of secret history, the general bearing of which was, it is . 
true, unfavourable to the eastern states, but which had been sa- 
tisfactorily explained at the time. " There were some of those 
proceedings," he said, " which ought to be published for general 
information. He would state one of them, which was perhaps 
not known to the nation, and was a most important part of the his- 
tory of our country. It was not noticed by Judge Marshall or 
Dr. Ramsay, in their histories of our country ; and was not no- 



/ '* 

ticcd probably because they knew nothing of it, not havhig ac- 
cess to the secret journal that contained it. In the year 1785," 
Mr. Pinckney proceeded to state, " the Spanish government sent 
a minister to this country with full powers to treat for a surren- 
der of the right to navigate the Mississippi, for twenty-five or 
thirty years, exclusively to Spain. If that treaty had taken place, 
the consequence would have been, that the whole of the country 
on the Mississippi would have been either separate and indepen- 
dent of this government, or in the hands of France. This propo- 
sition from the Spanish government, when made, was referred to 
Mr. Jay to report upon it ; and to the astonishment of the coun- 
try," Mr. P. said, " that gentleman had not only reported in fa- 
vour of accepting it, but supported that opinion with much ear- 
nestness, and with the best exertion of his talents. The question 
was then submitted to the votes of the states. All the eastern 
and northern states," said Mr. P., " joined in support of the trea- 
ty ; and had it not been for the greatest exertions I ever witness- 
ed in a public body, from those opposed to it, that treaty would 
have been ratified. If it had been^ where now would have been 
the members who Jill these seats ? Either subjects of a power 
hostile to us, or members of a government wholly independent of 
us, and our rivals."* 

Now it may fairly be asked, if all the inferences intended to be 
drawn by Mr. Pinckney were correct, cui bono, what good pur- 
pose, in a national point of view, could have been effected by this 
statement ? The more offensive a subject is, the stronger reason 
is there against disinterring it. When the object is to prove that 
a candidate for public favour is not deserving of what he aims at, 
reference to former actions may be necessary. But in a case of 
this nature, the obvious effect would be to dissolve the ties of 
brotherhood between states " which have the strongest motives 
for cultivating mutual affection and esteem." The fact however 
Ts, that this particular transaction has been greatly misstated by 
Mr. Pinckney. The true history of it may be found published in 
the Debates of the Virginia Convention on the Constitution of 
the United States. The subject of the abortive treaty was inci- 
dentally mentioned, and a full representation made of the occur- 
rences by the late president Madison, and others who like him 

• National Intelligencer, February 19, 1830. 



73 

were opposed to the miserable system of exciting local animosi- 
ties, a system which, whether practised in the north or the south, 
in the middle or the western states, is equally deserving of the 
most scornful reprehension. 

The following extracts from the speeches of some of the most 
distinguished statesmen of Virginia, may sei-ve to remove im- 
pressions conflicting with the harmony of the Union, and may 
therefore not be out of place here. 
Mr. Patrick Henry — 

" There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the 
right of navigating the Mississippi. This dispute has sprung 
from the federal government. I wish to know the origin and pro- 
gress of this business, as it would probably unfold great dangers. 
In my opinion, the preservation of that river calls for our most 
■ serious consideration. It has been agitated in congress. Seven 
states have voted so as that it is known to the Spaniards that un- 
der our existing system the Mississippi shall be taken from them. 
Seven states wished to relinquish this river to them. The six 
southern states opposed it." Sec* 
Colonel Henry Lee — 

" I feel myself called upon to come forward and tell the truth 
with respect to the transaction about the Mississippi. — There are 
men of integrity and truth here, who were also then in congress. 
I call upon them to put me right with respect to those transac- 
tions. As far as I could gather from what was then passing, / 
believe there ivas not a gentleman in that congress who had an 
idea of surrendering the na-vigation of that river. They thought 
of the best mode of securing it. Some thought one way and some 
another way. / was one of those who thought the mode which waa 
alluded to the best to secure it. I shall never deny that it was my 
opinion. I thought I was promoting the real interests of the peo- 
ple. ' But,' says he, ' it was under the veil of secrecy' — There 
was no peculiar or uncommon desire manifested of concealing 
those transactions. They were carried on in the same manner 
with others of the same nature, and consonant to the principles 
of the confederation."! 
Mr. Madison — 
" My honourable friend has referred to the transaction of the 

* Debates of the Virginia Convention, page 115. f Page 136. 

(10) 



federal council with respect to the navigation of the Mississippi. 
I wish it was consistent with delicacy and prudence to lay a com- 
plete view of the whole matter before the committee. The his- 
tory of it is singular and curious, and perhaps its origin ought to 
be taken into consideration. I will touch on some circumstances, 
and introduce nearly the substance of most of the facts relative to 
it, that I may not seem to shrink from explanation. It was soon 
perceived, sir, after the commencement of the war with Britain, 
that among the various objects that would affect the happiness 
of the people of America, the navigation of the Mississippi 
was one. Throughout the whole history of foreign negotiation, 
great stress was laid on its preservation. In the time of our 
greatest distresses, and particularly when the southern states 
were the scene of war, the southern states cast their eyes around, 
to be relieved from their misfortvmes. It was supposed that as- 
sistance might be obtained for the relinquishment of that naviga- 
tion. It was thought that for so substantial a consideration, Spain 
might be induced to ofl'er decisive succour. It was op/iosed by 
the northern and eastern states. They were sensible that it 7night 
be dangerous to surrender this important rights particularly to 
the inhabitants of the wester?! country. But so it was, that the 
southern states were for it, and the eastern states against it. Since 
obtaining that happy peace, which secures to us all our claims, . 
this subject has been again taken into consideration, and delibe- 
rated upon in the federal government. A temporary relinquish- 
ment has been agitated. Several members from the different 
states., but particularly from the northern, were for a temporary 
surrender, because it would terminate disputes, and at the end of 
the short period for which it was to be given, the right would re- 
vert of course to those who had given it up. And for this tem- 
porary surrender, some commercial advantages were offered. For 
my part, I considered that this measure, though founded on con- 
siderations plausible and honourable, was not yet justifiable, but 
on grounds of inevitable necessity. I must declare, in justice to 
many characters who were in congress, that they declared that 
they never would enter into the measure, unless the situation of 
the United States was such as could not prevent it."* 

Again, in answer to Mr. Henry, Mr. Madison said, " I never 

• I'age 225. 



can admit that seven states are disposed to surrender that naviga- 
tion. Indeed it never was the case. Some of their most distin- 
guished characters are decidedly opposed to its relinquishment. 
When its cession ivas Jiroposed by the southern states, the north- 
ern states o/i/iosed it. They still o/i/iosc it. New Jersey direct- 
ed her delegates to oppose it, and is strenuously against it. The 
same sentiments pervade Pennsylvania ; at least I am warranted 
to say so from the best information I have. Those states, added 
to the southern states, would be a majority against it."* 

This distinguished statesman added afterwards, in reply to an 
observation of Mr. Henry, " That if the honourable gentleman 
thought that he had given an incorrect account of the transac- 
tions relative to the Mississippi, he would, on a thorough and com- 
plete investigation, find himself mistaken. That he had his in- 
formation from his own knowledge, and from a perusal of the do- 
cuments and papers relating to those transactions."! 

Mr. Lee, in a short speech, positively affirmed, " that it was 
the inflexible and determined resolution of congress, never to give 
them up. That the secretary for foreign affairs, who was author- 
ized to form a treaty with Gardoqui, the Spanish ambassador, 
had positive directions not to assent to give up that navigation, 
and that it never had been their intention or wish to relinquish it. 
That, on the contrary, they earnestly wished to adopt the best 
possible plan of securing it."| 

Mr. Monroe, the present president, in giving a history of the 
first offer of cession, which he acknowledged to have been made 
at the instance of the southern states, said, " If I recollect aright, 
the minister of the United States at the court of Madrid inform- 
ed congress of the difficulty he found in prevailing on that court 
to acknowledge our independence, or take any measure in our 
favour, suggested the jealousy with Avhich it viewed our settle- 
ments in the western country, and the probability of better suc- 
cess, provided we would cede the navigation of this river as the 
consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to 
the legislature, and had their weight. "§ 

Mr. Madison again spoke upon the subject, in answer to Mr. 
Monroe. " The eastern states," he said, " had no idea of abso- 
lutely alienating it. I think one material consideration v.'hich go- 

* Page 237. t ^^S^ 238. 1 Page 238. § Fuge 239. 



70 

vcrncd Ihcm was, that there were grounds of believing there was 
a serious negotiation between Great Britain and Spain, which 
might bring on a coalition between those nations, which might 
enable them to bind us on different sides, permanently withhold 
that navigation from us, and injure us in other respects material- 
ly. The temporary cession, it was supposed, would fix the per- 
manent right in our favour, and prevent that dangerous coalition." 
" With respect to the secretary of foreign affairs,"* said Mr. Ma- 
dison, "I am intimately connected with him. I shall say nothing 
of his abilities and attachment to his country. His character is es- 
tablished in both respects. He has given a train of reasoning which 
governed him in his project. If he was mistaken, his integrity 
and probity more than compensate for his error." — " I am led to 
think there is no settled disposition in seven states to give up that 
object, because New Jersey, on a further consideration of the sub- 
ject, actually gave instructions to her delegates to oppose it. And 
what was the ground of this ? I do not know the extent and par- 
ticular reasons of her instructions. But I recollect that a mate- 
rial consideration was, that the cession of that river would dimin- 
ish the value of the western country, which was a common fund 
for the United States, and would consequently tend to impover- 
ish the public treasury. "f 

NOTE B— Page 10. 

The first act of the new political drama, appears to have been 
duly opened. The parts of the respective dramatis persona have 
probably been some time cast., (to use the theatrical expression) 
and the dresses are now assumed for the occasion. Whether it 
will end as a tragedy, or farce, remains yet to be determined. 
The attack has been commenced by a writer under the signature 
of Cato, in the "American Daily Advertiser" of the 16th of 
October. This ingenious essayist sets out with the proposition, 
that '* the Missouri Question has awakened the people and di- 
rected their attention again to the sublime contemplation of 
the original and inalienable rights of man." And then fol- 
lows the material question, " shall a man be chosen as the 
chief magistrate of a free people, who in addition to the act of 
holding his fellow creatures in bondage, enforces with all his ofTi- 

• :\Ir. Jaj-. t ^"S^ 247. 



77 

clal influence, the pernicious doctrine of the extension of slavery 
into the new states whicli are to be admitted into the Union ?" 
An apparently liberal admission is made in the middle of this 
address, that " this great question as to the extension of slavery 
can safely be trusted to its own merits, and ought not to be used 
for the aggrandizement of any fiarty or individuals." But un- 
fortunately, at the conclusion, the cloven foot is again visil)lc. " If 
a judicious ticket should be framed with a view to the objects of 
this appeal, would it not be carried in Pennsylvania ?" " If Penn- 
sylvania should rise and succeed, it would show her determina- 
tion on this great subject ; and it would moreover have a ten- 
dency to baffle and abate the pride of southern sufficiency, by let- 
ting it be known, that the Pennsylvanians will no longer be held 
in a state of pliancy to the will and pleasure of the south." 

This liberal and philanthropic appeal was followed in a few 
days by the subsequent notification, which appeared in several of 
the newspapers. 

" ANTI-SLAVERY. 
" Electors of President and Vice-President. 
" The citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, and of 
the adjacent counties, who are opposed to the extension of slavery, 
and in favour of a public declaration of the sentiments of Penn- 
sylvania upon this momentous question, are invited to assemble 
at the mayor's court room, on Saturday afternoon, the 2 1st instant, 
('October) at four o'clock, for the purpose of agreeing upon an 
electoral ticket to be supported at the approaching election, 
against the ticket agreed upon at Lewistown." 

Accordingly, an electoral ticket has been formed by the 
<■<■ enemies of slavery," pledged, as one of the speakers at the 
meeting observed, " to vote for any one in preference to James 
Monroe," whom the same philanthropist, in the true spirit of 
Christian charity, denominated " a perjured traitor, the tool of 
George IV." It is apprehended, nevertheless, that the anti- 
slavery ticket has but a slender prospect of success in Pennsyl- 
vania, a circumstance deeply to be lamented if it be true, as some 
suppose, that a change of rulers is what " conscience dictates to 
be done," but no less to be rejoiced at, if, as others suppose, the 
opposition to the present incumbent has arisen from the artifices 
of a few needy and desperate politicians, who, " resolved to ruin 



78 

or to rule the state," make use of philanthropy as a stalking- 
horse, to effect their unhallowed purposes. 

NOTE C— Page 10. 

It is impossible to conceive of any thing more wretchedly im- 
politic, more opposite to the spirit of our gentle and tolerant re- 
ligion, and, if it were worth while to regard it in that point of 
view, when considerations of so much more importance present 
themselves, I might add, in worse taste, than the system adopted 
by some of the writers in this quarter of the Union, in relation to 
the domestic slavery of the south. There was a period of our 
history in Avhich a far different temper prevailed. The existence 
of that evil in the southern states was admitted by all, save a few 
miserable fanatics, to be the misfortune of the southern people, and 
not fairly attributable to them as a crime; and the necessary allow- 
ances were made for the consequences resulting from the situation 
of master and slave. Since the agitation of the Missouri Question, 
however, and as if it were part of a scheme of policy to render 
southern statesmen obnoxious, the columns of certain newspapers 
have been filled with vituperations against the moral and religious 
character of the " slave holding states." Instances of supposed 
cruelty and oppression exercised upon the slaves ; intemperate 
comments upon proceedings, unavoidable while the relations of 
slavery exist ; sarcastic reflections upon the state of society and 
manners among the white population of the south ; effusions 
which can have no other effect than to abuse the public ear in 
one part of the Union, and to kindle feelings of indignation in the 
other, are protruded into view. In defiance of the spirit of our 
constitution, and the dictates of common sense, the mere circum- 
stance of possessing slaves is presented, by this new inquest of 
philanthropy, as sufficient to disable a citizen of this community 
from holding a public office. Now, if the object be to establish a 
sectional party in opposition to the present incumbents, the means 
are certainly well chosen. That they will utterly and signally 
fail of eff'ect, however, I have no manner of doubt. If on the other 
hand these editors suppose they are advancing the cause of hu- 
manity, it is only to be lamented that they should have adopted a 
mode above all others calculated to defeat their purpose. 



79 

On this subject I would wish to refer the editors of the pa- 
pers to which I allude, to the pages of Mr. Walsh's triumphtml 
vindication of this country, in his " Appeal from the Judgments of 
Great Britain." " It is certainly wretched sophistry," says this 
able and learned writer, " to argue from single instances of disor- 
der and vice ; and neither fair nor charitable to display only what 
is bad, in a mixed system, in which the good may greatly predo- 
minate."* " Habitual ejaculations of contempt and ill nature 
have a sure tendency to produce total alienation."! " We do not 
deny in America, that great abuses and evils accompany our ne- 
gro slavery. The plurality of the leading men in the southern 
states are so well aware of its pestilent genius, that they would be 
glad to see it abolished, if this were feasible, with benefit to the 
slaves, and without inflicting on the country injury of such 
magnitude, as no community has ever voluntarily incurred. 
While a really practicable plan of abolition remains undiscover- 
ed or undetermined, and while the general conduct of the Ame- 
ricans is such only as necessarily results from their situation, they 
are not to be arraigned for this institution, i/", as I have no 
doubt is the case, it Jiroducess here much less misery and vice 
than it produces in the other countries which are cursed with it., 
it furnishes occasion rather for praise than blame.'^\ " Those, 
advertisements for the recovery of runaways, which are copied 
into the English Reviews and books of travels, with exclamations 
of such horror and reproof, as though English newspapers con- 
tamed nothing to chafe the feelings of humanity and rouse the 
spirit of freedom, are incident to the existence itself of negro 
slavery ; and I think I have shown that this is an evil which could 
neither be avoided nor removed by America. JSl'egrocs cannot 
be held as property without being subject to alienation. A mort- 
main would be impracticable, and if it could be established, mis- 
chievous to all parties. The proclamation of the intention to sell, 
while it gives effect to the necessary and useful right of aliena- 
tion, affords the subject of it a better chance of being transferred 
into good hands. At all events it is an inevitable incident of an in- 
evitable institution. Slaves who abscond from the master must be 
reclaimed, or there would be an end to all slavery in the most mis- 
chievous of all forms of abolition. Without the aid of the public, 

• Page ix. f Page xlix. * Page 421. 



80 

the master would be unable to recover the fugitive. And it is to be 
presumed that the latter is quite as often a delinquent, seeking in- 
dependence for the sake of licentiousness, or from a refractory dis- 
position, as a victim escaping the exactions of avarice or the lash 
of tyranny. Unfortunately the character of the negro race with us, 
and indeed the character which is produced in all cases of bondage, 
might warrant a presumption more unfavourable to the slave. His 
flight is, in a general point of view, a violation of the order of so- 
ciety, which it is the interest, and abstractedly the duty, of every 
citizen to repress and correct."* " The American negro slavery is 
almost wholly free from two of the grievances which character- 
ize that of the West Indies — under feeding and over working. 
With regard to the article of food, the American negroes are as- 
suredly better supplied than the free labourers of most parts of 
Europe. "t " In defiance of the lessons of history and of the true 
philosophy of the human mind., the British writers have insisted 
that freedom must be altogether an empty name in the country 
where domestic slavery is established. Their doctrine would de- 
prive Greece and Rome of the distinction upon which the admi- 
ration of mankind for those republics, has been chiefly built. ":J 
" All our experience in America, since the revolution, confirms 
the opinion of the orator, or at least assures us that the citizens 
of the slave holding states understand (juite as well, and cherish 
as fondly, the firinciples of refiublicanism, as those of the other 
members of the Union."^ " The native citizen of the slave holding 
states, displays specifically as much sensibility, justice, and stead- 
fastness, in all the domestic and social relations, as the European 
of whatever country. He is as strongly influenced by the ties of 
kindred and friendship, as open to the impressions which attemper 
and refine our nature. He has had a large share in the forma- 
tion and administration of our institutions and laws ; in all the 
executive offices, civil and military ; and we have never disco- 
vered in him any particular proneness to tyranny or inhumani- 
ty ; a torpid conscience or an imperfect sense of equity. In none 
of the nobler virtues and qualities has he ever proved deficient in 
the comparison with the individual born and fashioned among 
freemen alone."]) 

• Page 418. f Pai^e 407. t Page 401. § Page 40.3. |l Page 404 



81 

The view here taken of slavery, and " slave holders," is one 
which every reasonable man, of whatever country, must adopt, 
and which, it is consoling to think, is in substance entertained by 
the great body of the community in the " free states," in spite 
of the efforts of a few politico-philanthropists, aided by the al- 
most unavoidable excitement of the IVIissouri Question. The ab- 
surdity of the proposition that would exclude all the citizens of 
the southern states from holding the office of chief magistrate, 
can only be equalled by some of the prejudices that appear to 
have formerly existed among a portion of the southern people. 
In the debates of the Virginia convention on the federal consti- 
tution, one of the speakers said, " We are told of the blue laws 
of Massachusetts ; — are these to be brought into debate here ? 
Sir, this puts me in mind of an observation I have heard out of 
dbors, which was, that because the New Englandmen wore black' 
stockmgs and plush breeches, there can be no union with them." 
" Had we this political jealousy in 1776 ? If we had it would 
have damped our ardour and intrepidity, and prevented that 
unanimous resistance which enabled us to triumph over our ene- 
mies. It was not a Virgiiiian^ Carolinian, or Pennsylvanian, but 
THE GLORIOUS NAME OF AMERICAN, extending from 
one end of the continent to the other, that was then beloved and 
confided in. Did we then expect that in case of success we 
should be armed against one another ?" 

In the history of ancient Greece, we may find abundant proof, 
if proof were Avanting, of the dangerous consequences of suffer- 
ing local jealousies, and sectional questions, to creep into the 
covmcils of a confederacy. » Many of the Grecian statesmen," 
says Dr. Hill,* " seem to have been aware of the fatal effects of 
these intestine wars, and by various means endeavoured to eradi- 
cate the seeds of discord, and to unite in friendship all who bore 
the name of Greeks. Nothing could be better calculated to ac- 
complish this patriotic design than the institution of the Olym- 
pic games. The exclusion given to all competitors who were 
not of Grecian extraction ; the common sacrifices offered to the 
same gods ; the similarity of pursuits, and the participation of 
the same pleasures ; all these circumstances tended to remind 
them of their common origin, and to make them view each other 

• Essays on the Institutions, Sec. of Greece, p. 81. 
(11) 



8^ 

in the light of allies and of friends. There also, the inhabitants 
of cliilcrcnt states often became connected with one another, per- 
ceived the folly of the prejudices which they had entertained 
against all who were not of the same tribe with themselves, and 
diffused among their countrymen at home the same liberal sen- 
timents which they themselves had conceived." The council of 
the Amphyctions had a similar effect. " Amidst the jealousy 
and hatred to which mistaken views of interest or ambition often 
gave rise, its stated and frequent returns continually reminded 
them of their common origin ; of the similarity of their language, 
and government, and manners ; of the earnest desire of their an- 
cestors to join them in amity with one another ; and of the folly 
of wasting against their brethren that strength which they might 
need to exert against the many barbarous nations, who envied 
their superiority, and were ever bent on their destruction.-" 
" During the early periods of the history of Greece, the council 
of the Amphyctions seems to have often succeeded in infusing 
sentiments of mutual friendship into the minds of the Greeks. If 
schemes of conquest and ambition, or the jealousy of contending 
states, afterwards rendered all such efforts unavailing, we cannot 
deny its tendency to form the Greeks into one great confedera- 
cy ; and have only to lament that the wisest and most salutary 
institutions are too often unable to counteract the effects of the 
follies and vices of men." 

NOTE D— Page 13. 

The compromise, as is usual with most schemes of conciliation, 
displeased the violent partisans on each side. Some of the south- 
ern members thought that too much was given up, when the line 
•was drawn so far south as 36° 30'; while the ultras of the i-estric- 
tion, the philanthropists /^«/•« el /lar excellence^ appeared to thuik 
that there could be no medium hi this case between defeat and 
victory. It is amusing, if not edifying, to see how near extremes 
sometimes appruacli. An epithet, originally applied by the great 
apostle of southern slavery to the members who threw their weight 
into the scale of compromise after voting in favour of the restric- 
tion, has been caught by the intemperate politicians and enthusi- 
asts of the " free states," and, like most other cant expressions, 
has passed with the unrenecting part of the community on the 
credit of the utterers, displacing the solid currency of reason and 



83 

fact. The persecution encountered by these members can hardly 
be said to reflect much credit on its authors. Charity, which is 
near akin to philanthropy, might, one would suppose, have sug- 
gested the reflection that the vote was given from pure motives 
and a sincere belief that the best interests of the country required 
it. It is true, that a literal compliance with the request or instruc- 
tions of public meetings, would have precluded any compromise 
by which slavery should be tolerated in Missouri : but a member 
of congress has other and higher guides, in his judgment and 
conscience. When a clamour, somcAvhat similar to that to which 
I have alluded, was excited against Washington, on the occasion 
of the British treaty, that great patriot expressed himself in the 
following terms : " Next to a conscientious discharge of my public 
duties, to cai^^y along with me the approbation of my constituents 
would be the highest gratification of which my mind is suscepti- 
ble : but the latter being secondary, I cannot make the former 
yield to it, imless some criterion more infallible than partial (if 
they are not party) meetings can be discovered as the touchstone 
of public sentiment. If any person on earth could, or the great 
Power above would, erect the standard of infallibility in political 
opinions, no being that inhabits this territorial globe would resort 
to it with more eagerness than myself, so long as I I'emain a ser- 
vant of the public : but as I have hitherto found no better guide 
than upright intentions and close investigation, I shall adhere to 
them while I keep the watch ; leaving it to those who will come 
after me to explore new ways, if they like or think them better." 
Marshall's Life of Washingtoii, Vol. V. p. 635. 

NOTE E— Page 38. 

" The removal of considerable numbers of the' slaves from the 
old slave holding states to the south and south-west, tends mate- 
rially to increase the relative majority of the whites in those states, 
and is likely to continue so as greatly to lessen the danger to 
which they may be held to be exposed. The slaves emigrate 
cither with their original owners, or with persons of the same or 
an adjoining state, to whom they are sold, and who piu'chase them 
for their ov.^n use ; or with the negro traders, as they are called. 
The greater number go with the two first description of persons 
to a more fruitful soil, to a climate equally or more favourable to 
their constitution; altogether they suflcr but little, if at all, by the 



84 

change of position. They are not in q;eneral committed to a new 
mastor who is unknown, or who does not possess the best testi- 
monials as to his views and to the respectability of his character." 

Walsh's Jfij'ieal, fi. 415. 

NOTE F— Page 41. 

" The votes on this question conclusively prove that a large 
majority in both houses were of opinion that congress holds a 
constilHtional right to inhibit slavery in the territories of the 
United States without their original limits; though many, adverse 
to the restriction on Missouri, may have thought it inexpedient 
to impose such restriction. The territory north of 36| degrees 
north latitude is ' for ever' forbidden to be peopled with slaves, 
except in the state of Missouri: the right, then, to iV:hibit slavery 
in any of the territories, is clearly and completely acknowledged; 
and it is conditioned, as to some of them, that even when they 
become states., slavery shall be ' for ever' prohibited in them. 
There is no hardship in this: the territories belong to the United 
States, and the government may rightfully prescribe the terms 
on which it will dispose of the public lands. This great point 
was agreed to, in the senate, thirty-three votes to eleven ; and in 
the house of representatives, by one hundred and thirty-four to 
forty-two, or really by one hundred and thirty-nine to thirty- 
seven;* and we trust that it is determined < for ever,' in respect 
to the countries now subject to the legislation of the general go- 
vernment. It is true, the compromise is supported only by the 
letter of a law repealable by the authority which enacted it ; but 
the circumstances of the case give to this law a moral force 
equal to that of a positive provision of the constitution ; and we 
do not hazard any thing by saying, that the constitution exists in 
its observance." After showing the improbability of any great 
profits being hereafter made on cotton, rice, or tobacco, the sta- 
ples chiefly derived from the labour of slaves, Mr. Niles proceeds : 
" Except for the commodities mentioned, slave labour is not de- 
sirable in the United States, because it is generally unprofitable. 
A comparison of Pennsylvania with Virginia certainly shows us 

• Five members h.iviiig voted in the negative, because ibcy were in favour 
of an entire reslriction on all the country west of the Mississippi, except in 
tlie slate of Lou^^iana. 



85 

that it is the labour of freemen which enriches a country. A far- 
mer in the former, with three or four hands, lives better and more 
comfortably, and saves more money, than another in the latter, 
with four times as many slaves. For the work done in the com- 
mon business of agriculture, the labour of free persons is by far 
cheaper than that performed by slaves : there is an intelligence in 
its details, which the slave is not entrusted with, or, if known to 
him, that he has no motive to exert. From these facts, I conclude 
that the demand for slave labour will be exceedingly checked in 
the United States, and of course the wish to have them, or desire 
to breed them, be greatly diminished ; and I believe the effect of 
these things will be, that Kentucky^ Tennessee, and Missoiiriy 
will before many years follow the lead of Pennsylvania, &c. and 
cease to be slave holding states, as well from principle as interest. 
In Kentucky, as I am told by several gentlemen of high standing, 
there is so strong an opposition to slavery, that the chief slave 
holders have long feared to call a convention to alter the consti- 
tution, though much desired, lest measures should be adopted 
that might lead to a gradual emancipation. Tennessee has not 
many slaves, and they are but little approved of in that state : if 
the culture of cotton fails, they will hardly be desired by any as 
ordinary labourers. They cannot be easily profitable in Missouri, 
and the influx of a free population may soon forbid the further 
introduction of slaves." Weekly Register, March 1 1, 1820, 

NOTE G— Page 63. 

I must again refer the enemies of compromise, and especially 
those Avriters in the National Gazette who have professed to pre- 
fer a dissolution of the Union to a " surrender of principle," and 
the " renunciation of any immediate political good, rather than 
to incur a great guilt," to the unanswerable vindication of the 
conduct of the government and people, in respect to the slavery 
of the southern states, contained in Mr. Walsh's Appeal, a work 
which must be considered of far higher authority than the effu- 
sions of any newspaper. They will there see upon what grounds 
the plea of expediency has been heretofore admitted into our na- 
tional councils ; and how far a community may be said to incur 
any " great guilt," that avoids pushing a " moral principle" 
through the disastrous consequences that may sometimes ensue. 
A few extracts from this book may not be out of place here. In 



86 

retorling upon the British government the charge of holding 
human bcujgs in bondage, the author cjuotcs a passage of a speech 
of Mr. W. Grant in the house of commons, which, as it contains 
much good sense applicable to the present moment, I am induced 
to place before the reader : " Mr. W. Grant said, he had ever 
considered that the end of legislation was to do good, and to con- 
sider justice in our means of doing it. Now, there were some 
occasions on which it was impossible to do so ; and there the 
greatest good must be the object, even in violation of strict jus- 
tice. He would illustrate his meaning by an instance. Let them 
suppose a case of emancipation. Wherever slavery existed, there 
necessarily existed oppression, and the continuance of slavery was 
consequently a continuance of oppression. If he had professed 
to do justice, and a slave were to ask him how could he account 
for the use he had in view in making him a slave, if he meant to 
do justice he should not continue him a slave ? he should answer, 
that his means were circumscribed, and that it was true fihilan- 
throjiy to effect the g-reatest good which the nature of the case 
mould admit. If he forbore to do an act, abstractedly an act of 
humanity, but which would produce a diftcrcnt consequence, he 
surely acted rightly: were he to act otherwise, he should not 
satisfy his conscience, because he should not diminish the misery 
he wished to relieve." 

Let us now hear Mr. Walsh : " It was more than a practical 
moralist could expect or exact, that the southern states, retaining 
sovereign governments of their own, should trust the federal 
councils with the determination of such a question as the eman- 
cipation of their slaves, on which the highest interests of property 
and safety were immediately dependent."* " The question of 
the existence of slavery is not, as I have intimated, — could not 
be — put within the jurisdiction of the present government of the 
United States. The condition of things assuring, for a long lime, 
to the part of the country exempt or soon to be exempt from the 
evil, a numerical majority in the federal legislature, this domestic 
interest of the southern members of the Union, vital and pre- 
eminently delicate in its nature, would have been placed at the 
mercy of men incapable, like the Edinburgh Reviewers, of under- 
standing it thoroughly; liable to an undue bias, resulting from the 

• P.ige 386. 



87 

action of good principles; and who, whatever their general spirit 
of forbearance, considerateness of character, and warmth of poli- 
tical friendship, might, from ignorance and tirejudice combined, 
through a mistaken fiatriotism and philanthropy , or in obedience 
to a sentimental clamour of their constituents^ seconded by a 
generous zeal in their own breasts, hastily take a step which 
would sooner or later involve both master and slave in the south 
in one common ruin" " The eleven of the American states in 
which slavery is now abolished, are not implicated in the demerits 
of the question. To break loose from the confederation^ and thus 
to risk their own political independence, because the other mem- 
bers do not perform that which is impracticable, — because these 
happen without their own fault to be aftlicted with the curse of 
negro slavery, or to attempt to enforce by arms an abolition^ is 
what no sa7ie person will consider as incumbent upon them, and 
what would hardly be advised by England, who neither coerces 
nor discards the West Indies, and who would not ' give the law' 
to Spain, Portugal, or France, with respect to the slave trade — 
infinitely the more detestable crime and destructive evil — when 
those powers were at her beck."* " But those members of the 
Union, of which I am now speaking, [the free states] while they 
have inculcated without reserve, in the national councils, every 
truth either abstract or practical appertaimng to the question of 
negro slavery, have not been blind to the just sentiments of their 
southern associates, who alone are accountable ; nor have they 
overlooked, though they may not have always fully measured, the 
difficuhies uiherent in the situation of the latter: they, who have 
better opportunities of understanding it than the British review- 
ers, are far from thinking that it <■ affords no apology for the 
existence of slavery '"\ « The complaints which the British tra- 
vellers and reviewers have made of the unjust disfranchisement of 
the free blacks, have no foundation in fact, as regards the eastern 
states ; nor in sound speculation, in reference to the southern. 
The disfranchisement which exists in the latter cannot he said to 
be unjust, if injustice in the business of life be not a mere abstrac- 
tion, and have any thing to do with the consideration of stlf- 
prescrvation, and the welfare of the majority "^ 

* Paje 38r. t P^ge 388. 4 Page 39.). 



88 

1 will inticly add, as a contrast to the tamper in which some of 
tlic pai-as^raphs of newspapers cast of the Potomac arc written, 
the following; passage from an article in the Richmond Enquirer, 
of October 24, 1820 : 

" We assure our brethren to the north, that notwithstanding 
the existence of slavery among us, we are as much devoted to the 
principles of liberty as they are, and would cheerfully do any thing 
in our power to blot out fi-om among us a stain, which, while we 
acknowledge its existence, mc confess ourselves unable to eradi- 
cate. Point out any plan by which we can accomplish it with 
certainty as to the result, and justice as to its mode of operation, 
and wc shall not be backward in giving it the consideration it 
deserves." 



lUE tNi». 



la iV - a &' 



i 

VN 



> 





.o^^. 






<i^ ^-o 




.^* ^^-u-. -.^ 






^o 




■'--y : 


• »* O- 




. ' * "' 


^ 








^ 


J'^^^ 










/ 


.% ■ 



"^P ./ •>■ *^ ,sx* . V.^^* •>■■.', 

^ * » , -1 * -?,^ O " o « o ' .0 ^^ * • ( 1 • <S^ 

'V 'V^ ^<^ • 4.^' '^^ \^4%'^* V <;<> J 



V -I %' ./^ •^^ <V \V 









t 









,-^'^ oo"" 



, -1-:^:, 



^^ -^.^ 









~0^ '"oTo' 









.^^ 







o " = , r^^ ^V 



.0^ 



. L . . 



'7' 



"-0 



a'^ 



^^^ -^^ 



•J 



V <* ■ • • ^ ' . 



» 1 






'^^ 



o 

° " ° ^ u ^^ 






4, y3 






1, p *>* 



* "7 



I! 



c » • • ' O 



- * o 






.0-' o ° " ° f <^^ 



A^ 






■■>' 
A 






o « o . VJ ^, 



U? o 










' o „ o A) ^^ . , . 












^;^ 



^ s • * '^ O 










o ' 






1^ LIDRAar BINOli 



INOINQ 






• I T 






-^ 






